Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

17 January 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

< January 16	January 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Congestion pricing in New York City

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

Discussion on whether congestion pricing is effective and if Donald Trump will cancel it when he takes office next week. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by CerEffAya (talk • contribs) ^[1]

Results of the 1977 Ontario general election by riding

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

This is an overly and unnecessarily detailed WP:CONTENTFORK of 1977 Ontario general election, duplicating the results exactly but adding a mostly non-Wikilinked group of names. As a result, it fails the WP:NOT test of WP:GNG by being WP:NOTDATABASE. A merge/redirect is unnecessary since the information (sans candidate names) is already substantially presented at the election page and the title is unlikely to be a search term. I am nominating a group of similar by-riding Ontario provincial election result pages under the same rationale. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "detailed" riding-by-riding election results which list all the candidates names (which the main pages does not do) are a useful reference. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't address the WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:NOTDATABASE problems addressed in the nomination. Wikipedia is not a database of every candidate in every election. The articles for the elections themselves provide excellent encyclopedic treatments that provide sufficient detail. Users needing more can dig into the primary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging with parent articles solves the content fork issue. The point is that for people interested in elections having a list of candidates is useful and is also a common feature of election articles in Wikipedia. Not having a list of who actually ran would be a glaring omission. Would you even think of removing candidate names from say 2010 New York State Senate election? What about 1929 Chicago aldermanic election? Or 1907 Liverpool City Council election? Wellington Bay (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- "Users needing more can dig into the primary sources" - that's fine if they have Lexis-Nexus access. Otherwise, that information is unavailable on the web. Wellington Bay (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  In response to the WP:WHATABOUTX argument, I'm not proposing to delete any election pages, and issues with the content of those pages can be dealt with there. And by arguing Otherwise, that information is unavailable on the web, you've reiterated my own point that this article is functioning as a database -- something Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Honestly, what will be next? Articles for votes at polling stations? GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a reductio ad absurdum fallacious argument. Listing the actual names of candidates is a reasonable expectation in an article on an election. Poll-by-poll results are not. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The nominated articles are not the main articles on the elections. That would be 1977 Ontario general election etc., and no one is proposing to delete those. I am proposing to delete separate pages that are functioning as databases of candidates and results. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - So then merge the articles so that the main articles include candidate names (as they did previously before one editor added new tables without names). Wellington Bay (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Theres already an similar (but not completely the same) ongoing discussion that's taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Results of the 2023 Alberta general election, that people should be aware of. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge (but tidy up) - Candidates of the 2024 United Kingdom general election by constituency provides a useful template for presentation, given that vote figures in the main articles have been moved to more easily readable and sortable statistical tables as well as being shown in the articles for the individual constituencies.Raellerby (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, noting my previous comment on the other similar conversation. I think Ontario (in regards to other cnd provinces), is the only one which would qualify for stand alone articles of election results due to article size considerations of not having them (over 100-rows of electoral districts, with candidate names and vote results). - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that the question before us is not whether the information is useful or can't easily be found elsewhere, but whether the topics meet our inclusion guidelines, specifically WP:GNG and WP:NOTDATABASE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Subnational elections are a big deal, especially in federal entities, such as Canada. I think having articles like this are important to the coverage of these elections. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't address GNG and WP:NOT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Larsen

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

Non-notable pageant titleholder, fails WP:GNG { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of law enforcement agencies on Long Island

Also nominating:

These articles contain duplicated information from sections of List of law enforcement agencies in New York (state). It’s repetitive and unnecessary. Law enforcement in Westchester County and Law enforcement in New York City should also be deleted for the same reason. Any missing paragraph summaries can be copied from these articles to the state article or to Law enforcement in New York (state). - Joeal532 talk 20:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting list for the following topic: Organizations.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Lists, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Westchester and Long Island, keep NYC The first two are just items that can be noted on the county articles very easily, but the NYC article has to deal with numerous items just because of the complexity of the NYPD and other federal and state agencies and is a fine article in its current state. Nate • (chatter) 21:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — (leaning) — I’m definitely leaning delete, but I would second Nate in that NYC should be kept. WP:NLIST is actually quite forward in stating that “list of…” (and even “list of X of Y” as these articles are) should be be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I agree that there is some redundancy with these sorts of articles, but they can be handy. Regardless, the law enforcement side of Wikipedia is a personal project of mine, and while I agree that Westchester and Long Island are getting a bit redundant, etc, I do, however, feel that NYC, as the most populous city of the United States, and its large number of LEAs and LEOs (and a significant number of unique LEAs, at that) deserves to have his own list, even in the face of list of law enforcement agencies in New York (state). I say I am only 'leaning' delete, because if I can justify the existence of the NYC article, I’m assuming someone can justify Westchester/LI, and I’d be open to hearing their argument(s).
MWFwiki (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but keep the NYC article as per the discussion thread. I'm surprised by the number of red links. Bearian (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Joeal532 this AFD is not properly formatted as a bundled nomination and can't be closed as one. Please review WP:AFD for instructions multiple nominations and format this appropriately. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient history of Bangladesh

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

POV fork of History of Bengal and content copied from elsewhere based on synthesis and misrepresentation of sources, this topic fails WP:GNG, there is no such thing as "Ancient Bangladesh", Bangladesh did not even exist as a polity prior to 1971, "the ancient history of Bangladesh" is a ridiculous neologism and an oxymoron that no scholarly source supports. All sources are referring to the region of Bengal, not Bangladesh. WP:TNT applies. Nxcrypto Message 15:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Hinduism, Asia, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Pakistan, India, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Mizoram, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. Nxcrypto Message 15:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at all of your edits on the Ancient history of Bangladesh I have noticed how you keep on mentioning 'POV' and how you believe I am POV pushing but even after reading Wikipedias page of POV pushing I can't quite seem to understand how I am POV pushing and unless I am mistaken, this page is within Wikipedia guidelines.

Regarding your claim of the page being a fork of the History of Bengal, you are mistaken. This page covers the history coinciding with the political borders of Bangladesh, today. This excludes the modern state of West Bengal and other parts of Bengal which are not within the confines of Bangladesh's border such as Tripura or the Barak Valley. Many pages have been published in this format for example the List of wars involving Bangladesh or History of Bangladesh or History of Bangladesh (1971–present) all of which do not include information for events occurring outside today's modern borders. This page also lacks information concerning specific kingdoms and events unique to the present day state of West Bengal such as the Suhma kingdom. GtAM6 (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Comment: Sorry, here [1] and [2]. Oaktree b (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like a Bird

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NSONG. The coverage of this song is mostly just related to trivia / "did you know?" Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Maharashtra State Level Public Enterprises

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

This list of public enterprises in Maharashtra, India, fails WP:NLIST for lack of independent, secondary sources discussing these entities as a group. Furthermore, it fails the WP:NOT test of WP:GNG by failing WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which is what this page is -- down to phone numbers and email addresses. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Lists, and Maharashtra. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Muslims of Ceuta

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

No refs on the page since 2009. This seems to be a political party that never stood in an election. I see references which speak of the Muslim community in Ceuta but I'm not seeing them refer to this political party. I'd be interested to see if others can find sources that meet the GNG. JMWt (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Spain. JMWt (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable political party with no record of running and wining election. This fails WP:NPOL and does not meet WP:NORG criteria. Mekomo (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or "Merge" to List of political parties in Spain, WP:NORG shows that political parties don't have inherent notability, and this party only contended a single, local election, with very few sources covering anything surrounding the party. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Delling-Williams

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

Appears non-notable. Except for the BBC piece, all sources are bare mentions, interviews, or primary. A google search didn't find anything else. Tried to find a redirect target, but Recipe.TV itself is a redirect that is barely mentioned at its own target. SPA creation. Valereee (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Food and drink, France, and United Kingdom. Valereee (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moliere Dimanche

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Moliere Dimanche

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

This is a copy of Draft:Moe Dimanche which the creator of both articles, User:NovembersHeartbeat, submitted to Articles for Creation back in September. This user has now made a new article, Moliere Dimanche, to bypass the AfC process, and redirected Moe Dimanche to lead back to this article. I have suspicions about WP:COI that I have expressed on NovembersHeartbeat's talk page (Dimanche is running to be Governor of Florida, which provides a clear motivation). NovembersHeartbeat also created Dimanche v. Brown for a legal case Dimanche was prominent within, and I am now also considering this for deletion. I would like some external advice on whether any of these articles pass WP:GNG as I am not well versed on American legal stuff like this. Spiralwidget (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for initiating this discussion. I would like to address some concerns raised in the nomination statement: My contributions to Wikipedia have been neutral, informative, and edited by Admins. I like editing on Wikipedia because I like spreading knowledge. My contributions include the Federal Magistrates Act, the JUDGES Act, and I'm currently putting together a page on the concept of Unsettled Law. These are topics that serve public interest and make people wiser, and why people rely on wikipedia more than any other source of enlightenment. This user SpiralWidget on the other hand has had his pages deleted because he abandoned them for 6 months. I take the spread of knowledge seriously, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.

Redirects and Related Articles: The user SpiralWidget says he has conflict of interest concerns, which were addressed when he first started editing the page Moe Dimanche. I think his primary reason for nominating the article for deletion is because it is a duplicate page. However, the wikipedia deletion policy specifically says

"If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand."

But SpiralWidget moved the redirect page anyway because he wanted a formal discussion. The redirect Moe Dimanche was created to aid navigation for users searching under this common nickname. As for Dimanche v. Brown, it is a separate topic with its own independent notability, as demonstrated by coverage in legal publications and its significance in state-level jurisprudence. These articles serve distinct purposes and are appropriately created. 2. Conflict of Interest: I have no personal or professional connection to Moliere Dimanche. The article was written to document a notable public figure in compliance with Wikipedia’s WP:COI and WP:NPOV guidelines. This was already explained to SpiralWidget, even though I do not owe him an explanation. I came across Mr. Dimanche's YouTube videos after a judge in my city reopened a death investigation into a death of an inmate at a local prison. The only videos I could find on that inmate were done by Mr. Dimanche's Youtube channel and I learned more about him and asked why there wasn't a wikipedia page about him. So I decided to do it, as I began to follow what was going on with him. I welcome further discussion on how to improve the article and ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies. I hope my contributions to Wikipedia demonstrate how serious I am about expanding knowledge in the areas of law and civil rights. I hope to help those looking to navigating complex legal theories and civil rights. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Crime, Law, Haiti, United States of America, and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This wall of text isn't going to advance your case. Please don't accuse other editors of vandalism without evidence. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marginally Keep While I share suspicions that this is self-promotion by the primary contributor or meatpuppetry by the subject, I find that this does meet the general criteria for inclusion. Though not all the detail is necessary, the case cited does lend credence to the idea that the case and the subject of the case is notable enough; the precedent set is not nontrivial. Given the numerous local sources (admittedly probably pushing their own agenda), I think it marginally meets the threshold for inclusion. I would strongly advise User:NovembersHeartbeat to back off for a few days and likewise recant/strike his remarks about "vandalism". This is not "your" article. It is open to anyone to edit and improve within our guidelines. Buffs (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep When I first came across this draft in AfC, I refrained from reviewing as the notability seemed marginal–it could've gone both ways. However, I do feel that there are some significant coverage of him as an artist, but this article needs to be ridden of fluff and promotion. [3] I also found this book by Nicole R. Fleetwood that discusses his art in detail. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My presumption is that the subject of the article wrote this article or is heavily involved in its creation. I'll concede it is possible that the creator is telling the truth about their identity and they simply find the figure admirable. Shortly after at least some content was removed for copyright infringement, the subject's photograph and the subject's artwork were re-uploaded by the subject into Wikimedia Commons and released into the public domain. This is simply too great of a coincidence to ignore. All of this new user's edits are related to the subject. Frankly, the only evidence I can weigh in favor that this article was not written by Dimanche is this little viewed canvassing attempt I found on Twitter to oppose the deletion. This is a clear violation of the conflict of interest rules, specifically those around political advocacy and the rules against canvassing. When weighing my response against the weak keeps, please consider this might be part of what is influencing my delete vote.

The claims are artist and plantiff in an important court case. His candidacy as of now, in of itself, would not qualify him under WP:POLITICIAN and that does not seem to be a fact on which the article creator is basing their argument that the subject meets the various notability criteria.

On the note of his time as an artist, the writer does make a strong effort to attempt to demonstrate WP:GNG through mentioning various, wider distribution publications in which Dimache is mentioned or the subject. A Google News search indicates these are the ONLY third party coverage and while they are not all published on the same day, the similar content strikes me as creating an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers. For example, the Salon is a literal republication of The Conversation's piece on the Dimanche. These duplicative citations, combined with mentions such as taking a job at Winn-Dixie lead me to believe these are an effort to mask a lack of notability. I cannot consider him to have met the guidelines for artists.

The second is his status as the plaintiff of Dimanche v. Brown. I believe that, while the case itself is notable (and a good outcome for the country), Dimanche would be someone notable for a single event. Plaintiffs Lonnie E. Smith, of Smith v. Allwright, Otis McDonald of McDonald v. City of Chicago, and Charlie Craig and David Mullins from Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission do not have separate articles under this policy. I would not be opposed to some sort of merger with the court case. Additional information included in this article about the plantiff could be relevant. As I end all discussions, particularly those from articles written in a promotional manner. Wikipedia is not a badge of honor. An article about yourself or someone you like isn't necessarily a good thing.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: fails WP:GNG. Some of the sources are duplicates of each other and some mention the subject only marginally, if at all. The best source here seems to be The Conversation, but for some weird reason that article is duplicated in The Salon and in the first reference (which does not even name its source).--DesiMoore (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aer Lingus Flight 328

AfDs for this article:

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

I've declined a WP:G4 request on this—it can't be considered substantially identical to the page deleted in 2019—but the arguments from the 2019 deletion discussion still apply. There's nothing obvious to suggest that this is a viable Wikipedia topic. ‑ Iridescent 13:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ‑ Iridescent 13:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the previous deletion discussion. Still fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT, no sign of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE or WP:LASTING effects. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree with Rosbif73. This article fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline. UdexTG^{[talk page]} 14:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Suggest immediate Rename to Plane lands in barley field~~ or Delete as lacking WP:SIGCOV. Serial (speculates here) 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Aircraft iced over, nothing terribly notable. No loss of life other than the fireman, no changes in legislation or aircraft design as a result of the accident. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you voting to keep or delete the article? Your comment seems kind of contradictory. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vinzons Pilot High School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and does not cite any reliable sources that would otherwise prove its notability. While its students won on an international award, it is insufficient to establish notability. In addition, this award was not significantly covered by any other news media, only the regional arm of GMA Network (the linked article).

I suggest converting this title into a redirect to Vinzons since this school is listed under Vinzons § Public secondary schools and per WP:ATD-R. AstrooKai (Talk) 13:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. AstrooKai (Talk) 13:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bongshin Club

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

Unremarkable football club. No indication of notability. No claim to notability. No content on the corresponding Korean page either. C 679 12:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Korea. C 679 12:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 12:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:GNG -Samoht27 (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎ as obvious hoax, WP:CSD#G3 —Kusma (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayanagara-Prussian conflict (1552)

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

Pure hoax, but for some reason, rejected by editor who probably should wait until they are autopatrolled or a new page reviewer before making this kind of decision. Not a single source found for the "facts" in this article. Main source doesn't even mention Prussia[4]. No evidence found for the existence of a "treaty of Zanzibar" (or "Zanibar") in 1552. Article seems to be based on an unattributed copy of a Simple Wikipedia article[5].

Please delete this nonsense ASAP. Fram (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, India, and Germany. Fram (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Small Leaks Sink Ships

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

Article moved to main space without verification, no notable media sources. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search identified 3 critical reviews in WP:RSMUSIC sources: Punknews, Exclaim!, Allmusic. Subject appears to be notable per WP:MUSICBIO#1. ResonantDis_tortion 17:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LVLY

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

Fails WP:NCORP, sources with little credibility and only passing mentions. Article creator blocked WP:SOCK Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I've never heard of this company but it seems to have gotten a reasonable amount of coverage in the Australian business/financial press. These two articles from the Australian Financial Review [6] [7] are clearly SIGCOV in a reliable, independent source that I would consider top-tier for Australian business news. These four articles in SmartCompany and Money Magazine [8] [9] [10] [11] quote the founders a bit more than I'd like but are still reliable sources written by proper journalists. There was also a bit of relatively shallow coverage in Malaysia after the acquisition [12] [13]. The awards they've won aren't particularly impressive and I couldn't find any SIGCOV associated with those. Overall, my view is that the AFR coverage is excellent and unambiguously WP:SIRS, but I'm not seeing a second source that quite meets the high bar for quality under WP:ORGCRIT. All the other sources feel either slightly promotional or strike me as relatively shallow routine coverage of the acquisition. MCE89 (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WNYT (internet radio)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable Internet radio station; just two sources; TV station in Albany should be primary topic. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Education, and New York. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per first AFD. College radio station that was on the air for decades; while the article could certainly use some work, the topic is notable. 162 etc. (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete previous AfD keep votes and above argue WP:ITSNOTABLE. I'm not seeing sources to establish GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If it was on-air for decades it is likely notable in some way, even if that's difficult to verify with online sources (a typical issue with topics like smaller media orgs) - the argument that another radio should be WP:PTOPIC is irrelevant - it's disambiguated already, that's why DABs exist. (Although it's irrelevent to this discussion, I am inclined to agree that the Albany station is likely PTOPIC here) ASUKITE 16:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it existed until 2023, so it should get online coverage. None of the keep !votes have provided evidence of coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New York Institute of Technology. College radio stations, regardless of whether they broadcast terrestrially or over the internet, are not "inherently" notable just for existing — like all other types of media outlets, a college radio station still has to be shown to pass WP:GNG. But the only references here are a very short blurb in Billboard, which is fine but not substantive enough to get this over the bar all by itself, and content self-published by its own parent institution, which is not support for notability at all. We also do not simply assume that GNG-worthy coverage exists just because the topic's been around for a long time — you must find and show evidence that enough GNG-worthy coverage does exist, not just speculate about the possibility that it might. And since we are not limited to sourcing that Googles, but are allowed to dig out and use sourcing that we find in archives like ProQuest or newspapers.com, Googlabilty problems are not an exemption from GNG either.
So I'm willing to reconsider if somebody actually finds and shows hard evidence that sufficient GNG-worthy coverage actually exists to fix the article with, but media outlets aren't exempted from GNG just because editors assume that better sourcing might exist than anybody's ever been bothered to actually add to the article.
But per WP:STUDENTMEDIA, college radio stations which don't clear the bar for their own articles should be retained as redirects to their host institutions. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Lee (still photographer)

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

Clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Everything is related to his brother Spike Lee in a search. Article is sourced to a self published website. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Film, Television, Photography, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ – there are some articles about him (Chicago Sun-Times, AMPAS 1, AMPAS 2), but always in reference to his brother's work. Also wouldn't be opposed to merging to a new "Family" section or similar at Spike Lee, with info from Joie Lee and Cinqué Lee as well. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123 That's not a bad idea on a family section in the Spike Lee article. I would support a selective merge to Spike Lee as an WP:ATD if an editor steps forward who wants to take that on.4meter4 (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to merge to make consensus a bit clearer. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Guest (researcher and author)

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

Probable WP:AUTOBIO based on primary sources (letters), self-published books, ... The "Guest family history" has not received significant attention ([14]), and I see no other evidence of meeting our notability guidelines. Fram (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cool family history project, but doesn't seem like it has attracted any attention that could confer notability. Nothing to be found in any of the Australian sources that I would expect might cover something like this. MCE89 (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am a newby. This first article has been a journey. I am not sure where to declare a confliction of interest, so I will make the declaration here. I have recently completed a hard edit. Can you revist my current page. I am asking my article reverts from being nominated for deletetion """" keep """. NLA-Collections (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any mention in Google books or news, main source is self-published. Orange sticker (talk) 10:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refer references, Crown's examiner's "remarkable" research, spanning 1000 years. " " " keep " " ". NLA-Collections (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 21:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:MILL. What a horrific page. It's as if someone inserted random words into a AI generated tweet thread. It's probably an autobiography, which everyone knows in 2025 is frowned upon here. And literally millions of people, including yours truly, are related distantly to the early modern kings of England and Scotland. Bearian (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hard edits since your read. I am a newby and thought it was in draft. " " " keep " " " NLA-Collections (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meets no notability criteria, just a promotional WP:AUTOBIO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTWEBHOST, seems more suited to a personal webpage. Polygnotus (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback (I am a newby). Please revisit, " " " keep " " " NLA-Collections (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fram I am a newby. This first article has been a journey. I am not sure where to declare a confliction of interest, so I will make the declaration here. I have recently completed a hard edit. Can you revist my current page. I am asking my article reverts from being nominated for deletetion """" keep """. NLA-Collections (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the article revamp?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram, MCE89, Orange sticker, Darth Stabro, Bearian, GPL93, and Polygnotus: courtesy ping. ✗plicit 11:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Changes nothing about the substance of the AfD, should not have been relisted frankly. No reliable, independent, published, indepth sources about the subject. Sources are either generic pages not about Guest, or private letters (one reference literally reads in full "Privately held, not available for the public." for crying out loud). Fram (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm even more strongly in favour of delete now. Nothing in the lede, or rest of the article, explains what makes this researcher, author and genealogist notable. It seems the books he authored were never even published, just placed in a library. There are two ISBNs for the Guest Family History volumes, but searching for them produces no results. Falls way short of WP:NAUTHOR. Orange sticker (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The article says Due to the recency of his works becoming available since through libraries in Australia and England, only since the 5th of November 2024, Guest is still relatively unknown. Guest's notariety as a genealogical researcher and author of note, may however, grow, given the Crown's verification of his "nearly 1000 year" long bloodlines. and there is no evidence that he meets GNG or an SNG. Polygnotus (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no sorry, but what I thought was common knowledge hasn't reached everyone. I see clearly original research written as an essay, not even close to an encyclopedia article. I see that not everyone has learned this. Bearian (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This should not have been relisted. The "revamp" didn't even fix the formatting issues, let alone establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Paola Hernández (fashion designer)

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

Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP: TNT. It's a blatant autobiography by PaolaKagan. She only has 5,000 followers on Instagram, very low for a fashion designer. There is little to no coverage in WWD, New Yorker, or other fashion magazines. Everyone will get some editorial coverage in passing. She hasn't even competed in any of the reality shows. If they at least attempted to put in footnotes, I'd be more understanding. Bearian (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Little to no mentions in RS, Gsearch is straight to social media. The small social media presence isn't helping, non-notable person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no RS in the article and elsewhere. Mekomo (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adeolu Akinyemi

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

Fails WP: Author and WP:GNG. The sources cannot establish WP:SIGCOV and the awards received are not notable. Ibjaja055 (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, Business, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The typical round of Nigerian news coverage and dubious awards. I don't see anything beyond the puffy articles. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wokingham Today

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

Rationale: Non-notable news media outlet per WP:GNG. I'm not familiar with WP:NME and WP:NEWSNOTE, but applying their rules, the newspaper seems to lack WP:SIGCOV to suggest broader significance beyond local publication.

Source analysis and online search: Currently links to a broken URL for a fairly brief annual report and a sister publication, both WP:PRIMARY and irrelevant to notability. All I can find in terms of WP:SIGCOV is:

the article's cited source from Hold The Front Page, a UK regional press website, about its initial syndication [15] and
a brief article from the same site about a touted "world first" that the paper had exclusively featured women's sport coverage on its back pages - the article concedes this was a coincidence, suggesting the apparent global significance is grossly overstated: [16].

ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1oneam

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

Promo piece on a non-notable musician. Rejected at AfC but moved into the mainspace regardless, speedy requested but the tag was removed, so here we are at AfD. No evidence of notability, the sources don't come even close to meeting WP:GNG, BEFORE finds only social media and streaming sites, and there is nothing in this draft to suggest WP:MUSICBIO notability either. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. All I'm seeing in reliable sources is a passing mention [17] and two pretty run-of-the-mill articles, both under 300 words [18] [19]. Fails GNG and NMUSICBIO. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 19:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since this was moved into mainspace despite AFC rejection, let's get a solid consensus here to avoid an easily contestable soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still too early, TOOSOON. I don't see enough coverage in RS to warrant an article. [20], perhaps... One mention in a "cool songs to listen to" article [21]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not yet notable to be listed here. Mekomo (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Te Moana

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

Fails WP:GNG and little to no SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and New Zealand. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. These two articles [22] [23] are definitely SIGCOV, these two [24] [25] are a bit more routine but do name him in their headlines, and there are a dozen or so more trivial mentions in things like match reports. It's not a ton of coverage, but just about enough to pass WP:SPORTBASIC in my view. MCE89 (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lars B. Andersen

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

Non-notable businessman fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Sources are:

WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of him in the context of his company ([26], [27], [28], [29])
WP:PRIMARYSOURCES ([30], [31], [32], [33])
More trivial mentions in the context of a GWR attempt that has since been superseded or his election activities.

Nothing else qualifying came up in a WP:BEFORE search, and the civic appointments are not so rare that they constitute awards per WP:ANYBIO #1. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Norway, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable businessman. No WP:SIGCOV, trivial mentions in media; 'civic appointments' aren't notable (anyone working in the City can become a "Freeman of the City"). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true.

There are three grounds for Freedom of the City. 1. Nomination by Worshipful Company, 2. Nomination by two liverymen of the City of London or 3. By invitation.

You can't simply apply. Teacher2019 (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is untrue. The City of London website says: "There are several ways to apply for the Freedom: by servitude, by patrimony, by nomination or by presentation via a Livery Company.... Persons who have been on the City of London Electoral Roll for a minimum of one year may obtain the Freedom without the need for an application visit or Common Council approval. There is no fee in such cases and applicants should advise that they are on the Ward List.... Applications are made via email..." Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the update. Yes, that confirms the 3 grounds I mentioned which are 'servitude, by patrimony, by nomination or by presentation via a Livery Company'. The other way to obtain the freedom of the city is if you live there, not 'anyone working in the City'. So we are both correct in different ways :) However, according to the City of London article 'the City has a small resident population of 8,583 based on 2021 census figures'.

FYI I am still a relative newbie navigating my way around WP so forgive transgressions of the usual protocol! Teacher2019 (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"By nomination" is as simple as any two electors nominating someone. It really isn't in any way a big deal (as opposed to honorary freedom of the city). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article had some broken links, and they are now fixed. WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS: articles from government sites and major label magazine with picture of him seems not to be trivial. Found and added mentions from Portuguese [[34]] and US main newsmedia sources [[35]][[36]] with interviews (see article). Multiple articles discuss him at length as the subject of the article, so article fulfils WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC: significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Zralba (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The government sites are discussions of his company that trivially mention him. The Labels and Labelling magazines source is a WP:TRADES publication that is considered non-independent. The Q&A WP:INTERVIEWS you linked are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES since they consist entirely of his answers; they are not independent sources and do not count toward notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person meets the notability criteria with significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. That he was selected by the now UK prime minister (who must have visited many companies that day) is significant and adds to notability. Teacher2019 (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you outline what you regard as WP:SIGCOV, please? There are a total of 11 sources. One is passing mention - literally a caption on a photo. Two are about the company he is CEO of getting an award - but notability is not inherited. Three just cite membership of organisations or positions held. Another is just passing mention in a "thank you" speech. Another is about an ancestor. One cites his wife's name. That essentially leaves two references. Meanwhile, there are five 'citation needed' tags currently on the article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This page is pretty much an advertisement. My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I think the subject of the article does show to be involved in at senhor levels ie various institutions as part of the City of London and its unique heritage. My personal research of the subject lead me here and has added my research. Charliecroft (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for the reason me ruined earlier I think there is genuine notability in the context of City of London Livery history Charliecroft (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned earlier. Apologies auto correct

Charliecroft (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. By the way, User:Charliecroft, I can't see that you ever edited this article, much less added any new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rather unusual to see an editor who had made two edits, ever, return after a 16 year gap to participate in an AfD... Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Adding a source assessment table to clarify the problematic nature of the sources available:

Source assessment table prepared by User:Dclemens1971
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/4983/html/	Andersen's own parliamentary testimony	~	WP:PRIMARYSOURCE	✘ No
https://labourinlondon.org.uk/news/2018/04/23/local-elections-next-week-are-londoners-last-chance-and-eu-nationals-first-chance-to-have-their-say-on-a-tory-extreme-brexit/		Political party website	A passing mention; he appears in a photo and that's it.	✘ No
https://www.labelsandlabeling.com/news/my-nametags-honored-international-trade-success	See WP:TRADES		WP:TRIVIALMENTION of him in context of his company	✘ No
https://podcasts.apple.com/in/podcast/episode-14-lars-andersen-the-man-with-the-golden-badge/id1551340734?i=1000522164032	WP:PRIMARYSOURCE; see WP:INTERVIEW			✘ No
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1148143078	WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A WP:INTERVIEW		WP:TRIVIALMENTION of Andersen; discussion is of his company and Brexit	✘ No
https://kingsawards.blog.gov.uk/2018/08/07/my-nametags-from-business-in-a-spare-room-to-queens-awards-winner/		~ UK Government blog post	WP:TRIVIALMENTION of him in context of his company	✘ No
https://world-traders.org/lars-andersen/	Official bio; WP:PRIMARYSOURCE			✘ No
Passing mention on websites affiliated with Andersen: https://www.guild-freemen-london.co.uk/home/the-court, https://andrewmarsden.london/looking-forward-to-the-next-chapter			WP:TRIVIALMENTION	✘ No
https://data.eidsvollsmenn.no/getperson.php?personID=I46853&tree=Eidsvollsmenn		WP:USERGENERATED genealogy site	No in-depth discussion	✘ No
Andersen, Jenifer. Domine Dirige Nos An Introduction to the City of London	Book authored by his wife			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete per the source analysis. Mekomo (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra Nationals

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

Redirect to NBL1 East as I am unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for this semi-pro basketball team. JTtheOG (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Comets

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

Redirect to NBL1 East as I am unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for this semi-pro basketball team. JTtheOG (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Peters (software engineer)

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

While relatively well known in the Python community I'm not finding general reliable sources to establish notability. NE Ent 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE No notability for wikipedia, would be enough for pythonpedia thou. Warmonger123 (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some coverage here: https://www.theregister.com/2024/08/09/core_python_developer_suspended_coc/ ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The CoC action has also been covered twice in LWN, although you could argue that that's more coverage of the Python community than Peters himself. If consensus is that he doesn't meet GNG, I'd suggest redirect to Timsort. Adam Sampson (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Peters also appears in stories in at least ten issues of Linux Weekly News in the time from 2014 to 2022, before his Code of Conduct misadventure: 2014, 2015, 2017, July 2018,December 2018, February 2019, August 2019, 2020, February 2022, September 2022. After his suspension he also reappears on 9 December 2024, in a normal, technical Python-news story with only tangential links to his suspension. (There may or may not be other stories which my Google search missed: LWN's own search doesn't seem to work.)

In the old LWN archives reaching up to 23 May 2002 Peters appears five times: 1999, June 2000, August 2000, November 2000, 2001. Around the late '90s and early 2000s, though, LWN mostly leant on the "Dr. Dobb's Python-URL!" email newsletter (Google search inside LWN, partial and partly-broken IA archive), which it would reproduce every week, for its Python coverage so Peters mostly appears there. But one could try to reject the Python-URL as a source as lacking independence, since although it was published by Dr. Dobb's it seems it was (usually?, always?) actually written by a comp.lang.python participant. I wouldn't recommend it in this case though, as it would mean suggesting that maybe Frederik Lundh and others were making up what Tim Peters said.

(LWN also contains lots of primary material, especially since it regularly reproduces a whole mailing-list email as a webpage and links to that. But none of the pages linked here are like that.) RW Dutton (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While we're looking at Python-related Peters appearances in reliable-source periodicals, here is an appearance in Sys Admin magazine (ISSN 1061-2688), volume 12 issue 12, December 2003, p. 6, in "Python in Systems Administration: Part I — Better Scripting" by Cameron Laird:
The idea can be a hard pill to swallow at times, because it conflits with the "code re-use" imperative we all learn. Tim Peters is a senior engineer with Zope Corporation whose standing in the Python community is second only to Python's inventor, Guido van Rossum. Peters once made the case in these words: "It's easier to write appropriate code from scratch in Python than to figure out how to use a package profligate enough to contain canned solutions for all common and reasonable use cases."

Like various mentions of Peters in LWN, this one is not trivial. The author uses Peters' example to explain the main argument of his article, and also appeals to Peters' authority to help justify it. The one catch here is that Laird himself is another Python community activist. But—aside from the fact that Laird did not edit the magazine or approve the article—any complaint about lack of independence is, as with his Python-URL mentions, only relevant here if one wants to argue that maybe the Python community has been involved in a co-ordinated multi-decade campaign to intentionally overstate Peters' importance to the Python community. RW Dutton (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP If someone has created two things that are notable (Timsort and Zen of Python) it makes sense that that person has notability. Also, without this article, how would anyone know the creators of those two things is the same person? LarsHolmberg (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peters is probably also mainly responsible for SpamBayes (though Gary Robinson shares significant credit).

(Among Python things, he also created the doctest module, which has its own WP page.) RW Dutton (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. (I confess my interest as the first editor of Tim Peters (software engineer).) I can write more on Peters' notability, but I should respond to others first.

What is meant by "While relatively well known in the Python community I'm not finding general reliable sources to establish notability."? Is the concern that sources like the PSF and the PyPy Team lack independence when it comes to Peters? Or is the suggestion that being one of the most influential Python core developers is not in itself high-impact enough to make one notable? Or that Peters is maybe not really that influential inside Python? In any case, Peters' impact outside of Python is provably high enough to make him notable on its own. RW Dutton (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability in relation to Timsort: some of the evidence for Peters' notability in relation to Timsort. (Apologies to all for the late submission, but this has taken a lot of time.)

FOLDOC I'm not sure whether English Wikipedia considers FOLDOC a good source these days, but Peters has an entry there, simply as "[t]he implementer of Timsort".
Google V8 team Google's official V8 dev blog on V8's (and so Chrome's) adoption of Timsort also called attention to Peters:
Timsort, initially developed by Tim Peters for Python in 2002, could best be described as an adaptive stable Mergesort variant. Even though the details are rather complex and are best described by the man himself or the Wikipedia page, the basics are easy to understand.
Sebastian Wild and collaborators In 2022 the University of Liverpool put out "Liverpool computer scientists improve Python sorting function" (picked up by IEEE Xplore, summarised with no Peters material by ACM TechNews). This was about work done related to Timsort by Sebastian Wild, a senior lecturer in CS at Liverpool as well as head of the Algorithms Group at the University of Marburg, and others.
Dr. Wild had been studying TimSort, a custom sorting algorithm invented by Tim Peters, an influential Python developer, and specifically its merge policy, which determines the order in which detected runs are successively "merged" to form longer runs, until eventually the list is fully sorted.

Dr. Wild said ... "I'm very happy that Tim Peters himself took our idea into the CPython reference implementation. His Timsort implementation is a masterpiece of algorithm engineering, and nobody knows this code like he does."
Now this was more or less a university press release. So not exactly the most prestigious kind of scientific communication, but we don't need peer-reviewed publications for this purpose. In any case Wild's quoted statement about Peters is a direct statement from a topic expert. Also, to be clear, it's a press release from the University of Liverpool, something which is quite independent of Peters and the Python commmunity. Nor is Wild a Pythonist. On the other hand, Peters had accepted Wild's suggested changes to CPython's Timsort (and maybe might accept future changes?), so arguably that reduces Wild's independence here.

Wild has given further coverage to Peters in other non-peer-reviewed but expert publications. In his Fall 2022 lectures for Liverpool's COMP526 "Efficient Algorithms", specifically in video 3-7 of unit 3:

from 3:34, some heartening admiration ;) as well as information about how Peters managed the revision of Python's timsort to Powersort^[2]
at 5:20 and 6:07 discussion of why and how Peters came up with the merge system for Timsort^[3]

Wild also covered this ground in his "Quicksort, Timsort, Powersort - Algorithmic ideas, engineering tricks, and trivia behind CPython’s new sorting algorithm" talk at PyCon US 2023 (Wild's upload of the video):

at 11:34, a similar discussion of Peters' original work on the merge system^[4]
at 5:30, some new information about how Timsort got its name^[5]

Wild gave a conference talk with the same name (and presumably much the same material) at Dagstuhl Seminar 23211, "Scalable Data Structures" in 2023, but there seems to be no recording of that (and it would not have been peer-reviewed either anyway).

Wild also coauthored the Gelling, Nebel, Smith and Wild "Multiway Powersort" paper which was accepted for the ALENEX 2023 symposium:

Indeed, the need of a fast and stable general-purpose sorting method for the CPython reference implementation of the Python programming language was the main motivation for Tim Peters to develop a new variant of Mergesort, known as Timsort

Other CS research literature: several other research papers also mention Peters in ways beyond simply naming or discussing Timsort or citing Peters' work. Here are a few.

Nicolas Auger, Vincent Jugé, Cyril Nicaud and Carine Pivoteau, "On the Worst-Case Complexity of TimSort":
TimSort is a sorting algorithm designed in 2002 by Tim Peters [ 9], for use in the Python programming language. It was thereafter implemented in other well-known programming languages such as Java

And, as advocated by de Gouw et al. and Tim Peters himself, we strongly believe that the best solution would be to correct the algorithm as in the current version of Python, in order to keep it clean and simple.

There is also a conference poster for this paper. It mentions Peters twice, including by beginning a graphical TimSort timeline with a small photograph of him and the text "Invented by Tim Peters".

Jugé, "Adaptive Shivers Sort: An Alternative Sorting Algorithm":
"In 2002, Tim Peters, a software engineer, created a new sorting algorithm, which was called TimSort."
Yu Zhang, Yongwang Zhao, and David Sanan, "A Verified Timsort C Implementation in Isabelle/HOL"
Tim Peters invented Timsort algorithm and applied it in the Python standard library.

Peters himself released a C version Timsort, which is actually a part of the implementation of Python’s List data structure in C and has not been verified.

CS and practitioner textbooks Professional and college textbooks from major publishers which cover Timsort have also made a point of crediting Peters. This is again a partial list. It omits all Python books, and several others.

An undergraduate algorithms textbooks which discusses Timsort in some detail and names Peters as its creator: Data Structures and Algorithms in Java: A Project-Based Approach by Myers, ISBN 9781009260336 , CUP 2025, section 10.4.3 "Merge Sort in Practice: Python’s Timsort", p. 323:
Timsort, named after its creator, Tim Peters, is the default sorting algorithm in Python ...

A short description in another algorithms textbook from Wiley, Data Structures and Algorithms in Java by Goodrich, Tamassia, and Goldwasser, 6th ed., ISBN 9781118808573 , Wiley 2014, ch. 13, p. 562:
Tim-sort (designed by Tim Peters) is a hybrid approach that is essentially a bottom-up merge sort that takes advantage of initial runs in the data while using insertion-sort to build additional runs. Tim-sort has been the standard sorting algorithm in Python since 2003, and it has become the default algorithm for sorting arrays of object types, as of Java SE 7.

A two-page analysis of Timsort in Disk-Based Algorithms for Big Data by Healey, "designed for senior undergraduate and graduate students, as well as professionals" ISBN 9781315302850, CRC Press 2016, Chapter 3.3, "Timsort":
Timsort was proposed by Tim Peters in 2002. It was initially implemented as a standard sorting method in Python. It is now being offered as a built-in sorting method in environments like Android and Java.

RW Dutton (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage? Some (not all) of these Timsort-related mentions of Peters are fairly brief. Are they enough to be regarded as 'significant coverage'? Here I will point to something which Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Trivial_coverage claims is a (bad) example argument:

Delete One source saying she won the Nobel Prize only mentions her once. That's not SIGCOV. HennyYoungman (talk), 13:13, 08 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:ATA is, it seems, not an English Wikipedia guideline, I think the argument is worth considering here. The "Multiway Powersort" paper credits Timsort (and thus Peters) with bringing strong adaptive sorting performance to widely-used standard libraries for the first time. ^[6] "Adaptive ShiversSort" even credits it with helping to revive interest in sorting research!^[7] We're not talking about "The Three Blind Mice" here. The academics also clearly see the fact that Timsort came from Peters, an industry guy, as an important piece of context. RW Dutton (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Children of the Corn (group)

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

Fails WP:REFERENCE. Completely unsourced. Darrion N. Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 10:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan–Soviet air confrontations

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

Fancruft written with poor sources and is full of WP:OR. The creator of the article was indeffed long ago for copyright violations[37]. Nxcrypto Message 09:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Russia. Nxcrypto Message 09:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Sharma (politician)

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

Political candidate who fails WP:NPOL as he has only held local office. JTtheOG (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Delhi. JTtheOG (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete the subject fails NPOL, as explained in nomination. The subject doesn't have much coverage rather than routine coverage of election related news. In absence of significant coverage in reliable sources, the subject fails general notability guidelines as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Mayor of South Delhi though a local office but governs a larger area than most if not all Delhi Legislative Assembly members, mayors of big cities are generally assumed notable. Xoocit (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vegas Blue (Brian Tarquin album)

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

The reliability of the sources in the article is questionable. I'm unable to locate additional sources about this album, likely doesn't meet WP:NALBUM. Frost 21:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources, including reviews in Jazz Weekly and Roots Music Review, are included. Popcornfan (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added sources from legitimate media including Jazz Weekly, Roots Music Report, All Music Guide. Let's make the page live. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popcornfan (talk • contribs) 21:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Using WordArt for album covers should be mandatory. Polygnotus (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zoop India

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Zoop (company)

Articles for deletion/Zoop India

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

Fails WP:NCORP as no sources can be identified beyond WP:CORPTRIV or recycled press releases. Moreover, this article is nearly identical to the one that was deleted after a deletion discussion last year. The creator of that article was blocked as a spammer, and this could be the same individual, given the similarities to the deleted version. Yuvaank (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and India. Yuvaank (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of classical music composers by era

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

The long list uses no sources thus violating WP:V and has no inclusion criteria, essentially, the composers are chosen arbitrarily, thus going against WP:LISTCRITERIA. On top of it, the list is practically unusable, as the content is not searchable, so it is not possible to locate a composer unless one knows the dates of his life - but with this knowledge there is little use for a timeline. A reader of this AfD might try, for example to locate Cesar Cui as an exercise. The same Cesar Cui was part of The Five, but it is almost impossible to decipher from the chosen way of representation, as the pieces of timeline are split arbitrarily, thus creating false impression of periodic composers' mass extinctions, like the one in 1610 (section "Renaissance era"). As a result, The Five's lives are literally cut into pieces. We already have Lists of composers#Era that are way more readable, so an issue of WP:CFORK also pops up. Викидим (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Music. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Redirects to Lists of composers#Era have been reverted several times. Noting there has been discussion about how the timeline has limited functionality. – The Grid (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even if it had sources, this thing would still be an unencyclopedic mess. That and the impossibility of imposing inclusion criteria make deletion the only possible choice. I suppose such a chart could possibly be used in a much more limited way, say among a group of composers for whom inclusion criteria can be established, like The Five or Les Six. But even so, it wouldn't be encyclopedic. As it stands, on top of the reasons given by nominator, this would still qualify for deletion according to WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Biddulph

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

Mass-created article by Lugnuts. Fails WP:NSPORTS Only cites are passing-mentions in an all-encompassing database and a two-sentence mention in an article of dubious independence in a local newspaper ("After the race the runners and friends sat down to tea provided by the well-known ex-Northern steeplechase champion, Norman Biddulph, who is now mine host at the Royal Oak Hotel. Biddulph won the 1/2 and 1 mile at Bolton Borough Police Sports at Bromwich-st. a year or two ago, and represented England in the Olympic Games of 1928 at Amsterdam"). FOARP (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and United Kingdom. FOARP (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Olympedia (which is actually not a wiki but a reliable reference work by historian Bill Mallon) has five sentences of high-quality prose on the subject. Olympedia is only a database in the same sense that The New York Times is a database, i.e. you can sort and search for biographies but the prose is what matters. It's not all-encompassing -- there's editorial discretion because not all entries have copy as thorough as that of the subject.

The subject also actually does meet NSPORTS, specifically WP:NATH prong 7 for being 8th in the world in the steeplechase in 1928. I improved the article with some other references like "ANOTHER YORKSHIRE RUNNER" and "ATHLETICS. WIDNES POLICE SPORTS. OBJECTION TO BIDDULPH'S ENTRY." --Habst (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Bar, Shropshire

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

Is there anything Notable about this street? The first and second sources don't appear to support the content. The remainder have absolutely minimal mention of Lower Bar, if at all. The History section is very poorly-written and appears to say nothing Notable. It could be Merged into the High Street section of the Newport, Shropshire article, but I am struggling to find any content worth merging. KJP1 (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Newport,_Shropshire#The_High_Street; nothing here to indicate that this is a "suburb" needing a separate article. The many sources support the fact that it exists as a street and postal address, but nothing more. PamD 08:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Cow (cartoon)

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

This is an article about a cow from a children's show. There doesn't appear to be any reliable sourcing about this character really. GamerPro64 07:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and United Kingdom. GamerPro64 07:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plausible redirect to The Story Makers, the series the character appears on. Nate • (chatter) 17:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Government procurement in Poland

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

Links to only one article. Text has not been significantly updated since the page was first made. No proof that the article falls under WP:SIGCOV; no sources are listed on the article, and even Polish Wikipedia has only one secondary source. I would additionally argue that the article falls under WP:A1. Mupper-san (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT as the least-bad option where every option sucks. Looking at the common outcomes of AfDs:

The article obviously can't be kept in its current form
The article doesn't qualify for WP:A1 by my reading of that policy; it's at least possible to tell by reading the article what it is about
The article also doesn't obviously meet any of the reasons for deletion; in particular, I have a hard time believing the subject isn't notable or that reliable sources don't exist considering it's an important matter of policy concerning a national government.
The article could be merged or redirected, but I don't see anything in Category:Government of Poland that jumps out at me as a useful redirect target, i.e. one that would actually cause wiki readers to be redirected to a page with content they're looking for. Also, I'm not convinced that any of the existing content would survive a merge.
Finally, considering the page history draftifying would be a way to delete the article with extra steps per WP:G13.

Unfortunately, the article has existed more or less in its current state since 2013; I think the least-bad option is to redlink it in the hopes that an editor shows up at some point with the necessary expertise (or at least ability to read Polish sources) to write a decent article in its place. --Richard Yin (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Millheiser

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

Article relies primarily on primary, self-published, and non-independent sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Become the Other

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

Studio album which does not make the case for notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does it not make the case for notability? DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielTheMusicMaster Is this a vote? If so, please update your comment with a vote like Delete, Weak delete, Neutral, Weak keep, or Keep. If it is not, please add Comment or {{Comment}} which produces the following:

Comment:

Hope this makes sense! TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I think I understand now. DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the album warrants an article, seeing as how it was included on the Official Charts. DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, not strong arguments for Deleting or Keeping this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, if the article did place high on some sort of chart, then I suppose there's a reason to keep it? But, I did get a whiff of WP:GARAGE. Not enough to warrant a delete vote, but still. Madeline1805 (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Floor's Too Far Away

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

Non-notable studio album; does not make the case for inclusion with listed sources; could be merged in band's page in part. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it not make sense? DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, typed a little fast there. What I meant to say was: Why does it not make the case? DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The album has been mentioned in official publications. DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not strong arguments to Keep or Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't see a good reason to keep this. Album didnt hit any sort of charts or top hits, all the sources at a quick glance seem to just be either reviews on websites I don't know the reliability on, or just sites listing the tracks, with user-generated reviews.

Madeline1805 (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Meehan

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

None of the sources (other than Blottner) mention the subject in anything but credit lists. This does not constitute significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Probably none of the references? Many sources mention the subject other than in the credit list! gidonb (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add those here. The only source used which has him in anything beyond a credits list is the Blottner source; but those comments are sparse and perfunctory and do not demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Please provide evidence of sources with in-depth coverage. None of the materials address biographical content like dates of birth or death. An encyclopedia entry (if one can be found) would go a long way to proving notability for example. Even an obituary (as long as its not a paid for one) would be useful to help meet GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reference. References are in the article. Sources are out there. This particular reference was removed by someone and just re-added by me. I saw maybe 10-20 sources that mention the cinematographer. ~~He probably passes CREATIVE #2 for being extremely prolific.~~ Texts often say something about the job he did. There is an anecdote in a book about a fellow cinematographer who he trained. There might be more in the newspapers. gidonb (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a WP:SOURCESEXIST argument which is listed as a discredited argument at AFD. You must produce specific sources here with specific details (preferably url links but offline sources with title, author, date, publisher, and page number work too), and not make vague unsubstantiated claims.4meter4 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's not WP:SOURCESEXIST at all as I do not say that SIGCOV exists, only that I'll look further. That's anyone's prerogative. Please note that thus far I have only commented so all these frames are totally irrelevant. gidonb (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AFD needs additional participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:CREATIVE does not require secondary biographical SIGCOV. What needs to be established is that he created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. I would say that a cinematographer plays a "major role" in the creation of a film, and as a prolific cinematographer who worked on a large number of significant films I think he clears that bar. I also would not be at all surprised if WP:GNG coverage exists and is just difficult to find, but I don't think it's necessary given that he passes WP:CREATIVE. MCE89 (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frenemies (podcast)

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Since Frenemies was only a series of episodes of the H3 Podcast, there is no reason for there to be a standalone article about it. This page could be redirected to H3 Podcast#Frenemies and Families, which was the consensus on the previous AfD. The discussion at Talk:Frenemies (podcast)#This was never a standalone podcast also provides some useful information. Badbluebus (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Internet. Badbluebus (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to H3 Podcast#Frenemies and Families

Never heard of this podcast, but seeing off of what OP says, and doing some research myself, it does fail REDUNDANTFORK in my eyes. Madeline1805 (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As stated, previous AFD closed as a Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maddelynn Hatter

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

Article relies on blogs, self-published podcasts, and non-independent sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, fails WP:BLP1E as everything revolves around competing on a television show.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not expand this redirect, but I removed the bad sources and added a few more sources + claims to the article. I'd say there's probably enough coverage to stitch together a decent biography about her early life, career, and personal life, but IF the subject is deemed not notable then please just redirect the page to The Boulet Brothers' Dragula season 3. The page serves a purpose and there's no need to delete the article history. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Photography, Sexuality and gender, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the additional text that's recently been added. I think there's room to expand this. If there's insufficient support for keep, I would also settle for a merge with the Dragula article. Lewisguile (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. I've added several more sources and think the entry should be expanded and improved, not deleted ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not appear to meet WP:ENT, no valid secondary sourcing. Interviews do not count, nor do blogs or Youtube. Mamani1990 (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas F. O'Neill

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

The one source that is used is literally just a filmography listing. It doesn't have anything to say about the subject's work. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was an art director for notable films and he has sources about him Clothes Make the Character: The Role of Wardrobe in Early Motion Pictures (Page 122), having information that he was born in brooklyn and died in the Bronx and has his birth and death year mentioned, and also saying that he left the film industry in 1935. He also has a death notice in Newspapers.com, O'Neill--Thomas F. (Daily News), but still not confirming the day he actually died. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not in-depth and it is not WP:SIGCOV. Sigler's Clothes Make the Character: The Role of Wardrobe in Early Motion Pictures has less than a paragraph. It states: "Thomas F. O'Neill (1890-1974). We know he was born in Brooklyn and died in the Bronx, and he had at least twenty-one art director credits, among them The Man Who Laughs (1928) and the Perils of Pauline (1933), along with Broadway. However, after 1935, he vanished from the industry scene while still a young man." That's it. Only 55 words of text, about the size of two DYK hooks. The death notice is also perfunctory and it is not clear that it is independent. Looks like a paid obituary. I wouldn't count either of these as qualifying references towards WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steven O'Mahoney-Schwartz

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

Relies entirely on primary and non-independent sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry G. Gorin

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

It looks like he was involved in a bunch of notable court cases as a deputy DA but none of the refs are about him as an individual, it's all about the cases. The only exceptions are personal bios and this interview about his practice. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, Russia, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, just an attack page. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Richard O'Connell (racehorse trainer)

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

The cited sources either don't mention the subject at all or only in passing. They don't verify the content in the article. Perhaps there was link rot of some kind? Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Horse racing, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pustilnik

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

Relies entirely on primary sources. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katherina Roshana

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

Fails WP:BLP1E. Only known for winning a beauty pageant.4meter4 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, South America, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the nom that this subject does not appear to have the lasting notability and is a WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given this article's inclusion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexi Wilson, Soft Deletion is not possible for this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Rodriguez (photographer)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. The New York magazine piece is a great feature of his photographs but there isn't much prose about the subject accompanying the photos. The other source is the subject's website. There's not enough indepth coverage here to justify an article.4meter4 (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Photography, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The relevant standard here is WP:CREATIVE, which doesn't require secondary biographical SIGCOV. Here is a full journal article about Rodriguez's work, here are two articles about his work in photography publications that I think give very strong evidence of passing WP:CREATIVE criteria 1, and here are reviews/features of his photography books in The Guardian, The New York Times, the BBC, the Wall Street Journal, Le Monde, the American Historical Association and Vice (that last one being largely an interview) that show a pass on criteria 3. The fact that his work has been the sole subject of a large number of exhibitions in galleries and feature pieces in major newspapers is probably also a pass on criteria 4. I think he easily passes WP:CREATIVE. MCE89 (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Sofie Madsen

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

Borderline notability, subject requests deletion,Ticket:2024091410007147. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Fashion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do you have any details on the VRT request, CaptainEek? Any reason for why they would be against the article? Since nothing in it seems negative. And I would not call her borderline notable, since she's one of the biggest names in fashion. It's just that the coverage of her is almost entirely not in English. But outside of most every fashion magazine in the world covering her, she also receives mainstream coverage from newspapers of record. For example:

So I'd really like some more information on this one before making a decision. Because I'm currently leaning toward too notable and well known for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to matter. Silver seren^C 01:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren The issue seems to be one of inaccuracy and the sources being out of date; most of them are over a decade old. I made a few corrections to the article, but her overall concern is that the article is now so out of date with her resume that potential employers google her and think her CV is fake because her more recent achievements are not on her Wikipedia. I think this is a problem we often encounter with BLP's: their article is frozen in time at a point when they had coverage, and doesn't reflect who they are now, but there isn't enough new coverage to update with. A problem that grows as Wikipedia reaches the 25 year mark. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like an argument for expansion, not for deletion. Unless we're going to be deleting a ton of articles for being out of date. There's sources available. There's this from Vogue on her Tokyo 2017 collection. There's this from Women's Wear Daily on her Paris 2018 collection. There's this from Woman.dk and this from Fashion Forum about her 2021 collection collaboration with Lulu Kaalund. I got all that from just a quick Google search without even knowing anything about how to search for Danish, French, or Japanese sources. Silver seren^C 01:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the VRT agent for that ticket, and CaptainEek's characterization is correct. She has provided only vague objections about things being incorrect, nothing specific. I have asked her to use WP:Edit Request Wizard to identify specific things to fix on the talk page, but she seems to want a VRT agent to do the research and fix things for her. The creator of the article even invites people to contact her directly and includes her email on her user page, but the article subject has not engaged with her. Yes, the subject of the article wants it deleted because she isn't famous, but the sources already cited suggest she's clearly notable, which isn't the same thing as fame. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the argument on her end is more of the "not a celebrity level fame", rather than the "rather well known designer in a field level fame" that she actually is, it seems. I still think this is fully fixable in the article, though it would definitely be helpful if she was willing to work with us on that. Since I'm sure she's more personally aware of the fashion news sources covering her more recent work than any of us are. Silver seren^C 02:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have received an email from the subject and have asked for further details. At this stage, I am not sure if she would prefer deletion or correction.--Ipigott (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion would be an option if she was borderline notable or the article was a hit job, but neither case applies here. The notability seems pretty clear, and the article isn't negative either. If an article about a notable subject is deleted, someone else will eventually come along and write another article. Improvement is really the best past forward. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She is a notable fashion designer and has coverage in reliable sources such as Vogue. Moopaz (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fashion deigner covered by Vogue and other sources listed above. I added the "Update" template to the top of the article, saying "Please help update this article to reflect recent events ..." So, if "potential employers google her" and find this article, they will be greeted with a note making clear the article does not reflect recent events. I hope that helps. Asparagusstar (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: before I would go along with a keep, I would like to see the sources found incorporated into this article. This is my personal opinion, and I've raised it before in other AfDs. Bearian (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more editors and if you have found sources, please mention them here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I had a very quick look on The Guardian newspaper website and found two places where she's named alongside far more famous designers. I've added them to the article. She's mentioned in a textbook, admittedly only a photo of an example of her work, but the author must have considered her worth including – Udale, J. (2023). Textiles and fashion : from fabric construction to surface treatments (Third ed.). Bloomsbury Visual Arts. --Northernhenge (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seams to be another person. 87.49.43.175 (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's 2 photos and an interview, over 2 pages. It seems to be the Anne Sofie Madsen that this article is about, with the same education, work experience and brand name. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: I have been in touch with the subject by email. She has made a very strong plea for the article to be deleted as although the details are based on reliable sources, some of them are incorrect. She does not have the time or experience to look for sources which paint a more correct picture of her life. As the article is having a negative effect on her current aspirations, she deserves to have it deleted.--Ipigott (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is that in line with wikipedia policy? TurboSuperA+ (talk) 07:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Anachronist said, she is notable and the article is neither negative nor gushing. If this article is deleted, someone will create another one. I don't understand how a few details in this article could be "having a negative effect on her current aspirations" - surely she has a portfolio to show potential employers? Yes, the article doesn't cover anything in the last 7 years, and not much for the last 10 years, but Wikipedia articles are not meant to be CVs. Hopefully the "Update" template added by Asparagusstar will help potential employers understand that just because the article doesn't cover the last 7-10 years doesn't mean she achieved nothing in that time. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everything in the article is incorrect. The Universities do not exist. She graduated with an MA from The Royal Danish Academy of fine arts. Look at the schools website. But 3 other schools are mentioned. It looks like they do not exist. The Sources are wrongly quoted and most of the quotes dosen't even match with the article mentioned. 87.49.43.175 (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The magazine sources used in the article do seem to match the summarized information. Did you read them? Are you arguing that the magazines printed incorrect information? Silver seren^C 22:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is so many mistakes. In 2007 she is living in Paris - says one line. But in the following she is living in London in 2007.

And yes I checked the articles. Some of the quotes is no where to be found in the article referred to.

The schools mentioned does not match with any schools. But in the article #5 it is mentioned she graduated from the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts with an MA. This is actually the only school that really exists. 87.49.43.175 (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, this source used in the article states:

Over the years, Anne Sofie Madsen has created illustrations for both magazines and children's and young adult books, and as recently as 2005 she was a visiting student on the animation program at the Film School.

Along with:

She started at the School of Design in 2002 and was able to earn her bachelor's degree in clothing three years later.

“When I applied to the School of Design, I couldn't even use a sewing machine. I thought they looked a bit dangerous. and was surprised by how much sewing technique my classmates knew compared to me,” she says.

Therefore, the sources do cover the schools mentioned in the articles in addition to the MA at the Royal Danish Academy. Silver seren^C 22:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the timeline thing does appear to be a source error though, just by virtue of one mis-placed word. The source reads:

The designer really gained a deeper understanding of the craft when she moved to Paris in 2006 to do an internship. Anne Sofie Madsen spent the first few months at the trend research agency Peclers, which publishes trend books every year with colors and materials that will shape fashion in the years to come.

The aspiring fashion designer acquired strong research skills at Peclers before switching to an internship at John Galliano – one of Anne Sofie Madsen’s great fashion heroes – in the winter of 2007. She stayed there until May of that year, when she returned to Denmark to complete her master’s degree at the Danish School of Design.

I presume it meant May of 2008, the following year. Since that makes much more sense. Silver seren^C 22:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the text, and added another source. I have avoided specific dates and said "Before finishing her master's degree, Madsen was offered a job as a junior designer with the London-based designer Alexander McQueen. She spent a year in London, then returned to Denmark. She graduated from the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts with a master's degree in 2009." Perhaps that will avoid inaccuracies but still reflect the info in the sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 87.49.43.175, the first university named in the article is the Danish Design School. It is blue, which means there is a link to another Wikipedia article. If you click on it, it takes you to the article Danmarks Designskole, that starts: "The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Design, more commonly known as the Danish Design School (Danish: Danmarks Designskole. often abbreviated as DKDS)". So there are different names for one university, and different names used for it in this article. That could be confusing, but it is not wrong. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you close to the subject of the article? Your IP has only contributed to the article in question and this discussion. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see there are sources for years not yet covered in the article. In an interview, Madsen says that she has had 8 books published since 2011 - they are not mentioned in the article yet either. These are not reasons to delete the article, though, they are reasons to improve and expand it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve found some on WorldCat. They date from 2011-2014 which certainly isn’t a problem in itself, but doesn’t help identify more recent sources.
- Frederiksen, Sara Ejersbo (2012). Zombiekatten. Madsen, Anne Sofie (Illustrator). Forum, Kbh. ISBN 9788763822312.
- Grønlund, Peter (2013). Hr. Wisborgs hemmelighed. Madsen, Anne Sofie (Illustrator). Forum, Kbh. ISBN 9788763826532.
- Skaarup, Sara (2011). Helvedes hund og andre gys. Madsen, Anne Sofie (Illustrator). Forum, Kbh. ISBN 9788763816458.
- Grønlund, Peter (2014). I skolens kælder. Madsen, Anne Sofie (Illustrator). Forum, Kbh. ISBN 9788763831635.
- Grønbæk. Pors, Justine (2014). Støjende styring : genopfindelsen af folkeskolen mellem ledelse, organisering og læring. Madsen, Anne Sofie (Illustrator). Frederiksberg: Nyt fra Samfundsvidenskaberne. ISBN 9788776830472.
I’ll leave them here but maybe copy to the article or talkpage at some point? - -Northernhenge (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Ipigott. Gedaali (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I'm unsure what to do here. We have two editors who strongly feel this article should be deleted as this is stated to be the article subject's wishes. But we have a larger group of editors who argue that this article should be Kept and are willing to work to improve the article's sourcing. I'll relist it for another week and see if we get a firmer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notability is not temporary, and she was clearly notable in the 2010s. No-one has found any recent sources about her (I thought I had... until I realised Udale's 2023 book was 3rd ed of a 2014 book), and obviously if any current sources are found, editors would be happy to add them. She may now be building a career in some totally different field (a wild guess on the basis of what has been said about her emails), but her career in fashion remains notable and encyclopedia-worthy. And there's nothing in the article which is a negative, no controversies or scandals, no intrusive details about her private life, just a career. Or perhaps two, with the book illustration. PamD 08:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the four more recent refs which @Silver seren found and listed above, to provide some updates. PamD 08:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Identiv

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

The sources in the articles are mostly routine coverage on industry websites or the company's profile pages on other sites. I couldn't find much besides press releases and passing mentions on a WP:BEFORE. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to mention here that, as discussed on Talk:Identiv#Issues identified during AFC, there are sources from most of the largest German media houses that contribute to notability, and which are currently not included in the article. /Urbourbo (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Midas Hygiene Industries

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

I'm not seeing SIGCOV or where this meets NCORP but someone more familiar with Indian sources might have an easier time. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is limited to documents from a court case, routine business profile listings, and the usual press releases. Yuvaank (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baidyapur Ramkrishna Vidyapith

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. I am tagging it after getting informed from another AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Balurghat_Lalit_Mohan_Adarsha_Uchchya_Vidyalaya, including a list of other schools that fail the same criteria. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 05:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and West Bengal. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 05:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail the same criteria :

Digha Vidyabhawan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
--☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 05:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Channels (film)

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

Not sure this meets WP:NFILM, I couldn't find any film reviews but someone else might have more luck. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nat Christian: a standard solution when the director has a page, for released films with mildly notable cast. -Mushy Yank. 08:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Does not meet WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 10:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maoist Communist Party (Spain)

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

Minor political organisation with no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. I found a few mentions of a "Maoist Communist Party" in Spain in books and journal articles, but they were describing organisations of the 1970s, not the topic of this article, an organisation founded in 2019. Yue🌙 04:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Yue🌙 04:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any WP:RS discussing them. But if someone finds some, I am happy to change my vote. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Barker

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

This TikTok commentator bio doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. There is a little bit of routine coverage of her viral TikTok video in sources that are not considered reliable, like WP:DAILYMAIL, WP:NYPOST and WP:FOXNEWS. Nothing here seems to meet SIGCOV imo. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She's not notable because of her TikTok, she's notable for her political commentary which she both publishes with news outlets and other news outlets publish about her commentary. She's actually been a commentator on Fox News itself on TV a bunch of times. I think it's legitimate to say that Fox News is not a reliable source (I think it's rated as yellow) but I think it is notable when somebody is on Fox News regularly because a lot of people see that. Ruthgrace (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have just looked through all of the citations again and none of them are "routine coverage of her viral TikTok video" -- they are actually covering her writing from The Free Press and Newsweek. I didn't cite her own writing in the article because I figured that would be a primary source rather than a secondary source, but here it is for your reference:

September 18, 2024 - https://www.newsweek.com/i-raised-millions-democrats-dnc-i-realized-theyre-party-rich-opinion-1955377

October 7, 2024 - https://www.newsweek.com/i-worked-democrats-years-billionaires-have-unfettered-influence-opinion-1961471

October 28, 2024 - https://www.newsweek.com/democratic-party-most-racist-organization-america-opinion-1976128

November 9, 2024 - https://www.thefp.com/p/democrat-fundraiser-evan-barker-i-voted-trump

Fox News appearances:

September 20, 2024 - https://www.foxnews.com/video/6362232260112 and https://www.foxnews.com/video/6362202718112

November 11, 2024 - https://www.foxnews.com/media/democratic-party-consultant-who-voted-trump-says-liberal-friends-turned-back-her

November 12, 2024 - https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6364601436112 and https://www.foxnews.com/video/6364625064112

For the article itself I've cited other people talking about her writing or her TV commentary as secondary sources. Ruthgrace (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ruthgrace: her own articles don't help to meet WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALIST. Appearing on Fox News or Fox & Friends also doesn't create notability either, although a lot of people watch it. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why a lot of people seeing a subject on the news wouldn't make that subject notable. It's true that left-leaning news outlets are more likely to be considered reliable on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that subjects covered regularly by right-leaning outlets not notable. Ruthgrace (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Politics, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aimsey

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

only notability is being a part/member of a minecraft server. the only reliable sources that are used are dotesports and ign, and they are mostly mentioned in passing, no in depth coverage. Http iosue (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Internet, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:SIGCOV and relies on primary sources too much jolielover♥talk 16:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Swanepoel

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

Not notable. Promo for a business exec. PzizzleD (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Kenya, South Africa, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Khalaf

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

Declined prod that was redirected. Another editor and myself opposed redirect here Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_9#Nancy_Khalaf LibStar (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Olympics. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud engineering

AfDs for this article:

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

Page on a very uncommon to non-existent discipline. It has been tagged for notability for many years, and just left. No attempt has been made to keep it current and encyclopedic, the main page cloud computing is far more current and useful. Best to remove, there is no useful information here we should be providing readers. This topic is really part of computer science & engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ligaturama (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cloud computing: I agree that this standalone article should not exist, as there is no need to maintain the same information in two separate places. However, a redirect seems like a pretty straightforward WP: ATD to me. HyperAccelerated (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify while the content is related to Cloud computing from the title alone I first suspected that this would about Cloud seeding. MKFI (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with @MKFI that a disambiguation is needed, as I too thought of cloud seeding at first. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksei Kulashko

AfDs for this article:

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

No changes have been made since the previous deletion and doing a before search reveals nothing passing GNG or SPORTBASIC. Kline • talk • contribs 01:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Russia, and New Zealand. Kline • talk • contribs 01:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already brought to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several times national champion and national representative. Several non-trivial articles can be found in NZ chess publications, especially New Zealand Chess magazine. Occasional mentions in international chess books and periodicals, many of them unavailable on-line. Multiple mentions in "The Week In Chess", the standard weekly tournament chess report on the internet since the Usenet days and a trusted source. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source eval for the sources presented?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edd Gould

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

I've been pondering on nominating this for AfD, and I've finally come to the conclusion that this article is not eligible for standalone notability and should either be deleted or merged into Eddsworld (if that article is even notable at this point with such sketchy sourcing). A WP:BEFORE search brings up obituary-style sources and passing mentions in articles. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 01:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Europe, and United Kingdom. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 01:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 01:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 01:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while i agree Eddsworld isn't sourced properly (and that it probably is impossible to source well given the mainstream media snobness about early-2000s internet culture), this article in particular seems pretty well sourced to me. That his notability mostly comes from the continuation of his work by Ridgewell (ie he became notable mostly posthumously) is irrelevant because he is notable. I think EddsWorld should be merged into etiher TomSka or this article, but that's not the subject.

Themoonisacheese (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't very many in-depth sources (including in the article) but I think there are just enough to support a short article on Gould or Eddsworld. However, most of the coverage is overlapping between Gould and Eddsworld and I don't think there is enough to justify articles on both of them so I would support a merge to Eddsworld (or vice versa). Shapeyness (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eddsworld and Edd Gould have alot of disconnected stuff from eachother, and do have their own histories, alot of content involving the show and it's creator reference these articles, so they are definitely in use.

They should'nt be deleted or merged Charliephere (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANNO: X

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

None of the sources appear to be reliable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG / WP:NALBUM. Skyshiftertalk 22:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rodrigo Rossi as an alternative to deletion. ✗plicit 14:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for the ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Candiotto

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

Disputed PROD. Fails notability criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and Brazil. Shrug02 (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I see WP:SIGCOV in the sources already presented (Globoesporte, Gazeta Esportiva, O Tempo), the player herself is not very famous but meets the criteria for the article. A quick Google search also turns up a lot of content. Svartner (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is coverage of both her singles and doubles career on several major Brazilian sports portals: [38] [39] [40] Svartner (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Svartner. Article needs a lot of work on subjective language. There have been several PRODS and AI generated tags put on its creator's other articles this week.Canary757 (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I accept coverage has now been found but I stand by the point that she is non-notable and the article itself is like a fan page full of Peacocking and puff and very little by way of actual facts. Shrug02 (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've made a tentative start to address the peacock tag Shrug02, will do a thorough one later.Canary757 (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Junlper

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no substantial or notable coverage about the twitter account itself. All the sources talk about the twitter account glacially in passing from a group of posters, or goes into marginal coverage about a phrase they used. None of the cited references are substantially covering the page itself. Scuba 02:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not commenting on the deletion, but should be noted that a semi-popular twitter account has called for the page’s deletion. Any new user voting on this, make sure to review previous discussions and infer an opinion from there. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, talk about bad timing on my behalf, I guess that's what I get for not having twitter myself. Scuba 03:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•Comment OP Here (i’m the semi popular account), i added a notice down below saying this, I should’ve of phrased my reply better. apologies for any trouble i’ve caused, i have no idea how wikipedia works so i hope you get this message) 2001:56B:9FE0:99A2:40DD:52BA:8C87:9EA3 (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support the deletion of this Wikipedia article. The account in question seems to lack the notability and significance required for inclusion in Wikipedia. While it may have been a fixture in a niche online community for a time, its impact appears to have been fleeting and unsubstantiated. The claim to have coined a couple of popular internet jokes, even if true, doesn’t seem sufficient to justify a dedicated Wikipedia article, especially when there’s no credible evidence cited which supports the claim. This sort of anecdotal notoriety is better suited to discussions in forums or social media threads than a permanent spot on Wikipedia.

Moreover, Wikipedia’s purpose is to document subjects that are verifiably notable and have enduring relevance, supported by reliable secondary sources. This inactive Twitter account's history of trolling and "shitposting" is far from unique or influential in the broader context of internet culture. Keeping this page sets a precedent for hosting articles about countless similar accounts, which would dilute the quality and purpose of the Wikipedia. 184.190.157.40 (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support this nomination and vote to Delete this page. Like others said the Goblin mode and Snickers dick vein articles already exist(their notability I personally also find questionable), otherwise this person is not notable aside from having a few rabid fans(and haters) that poison any discussion pertaining to them. Immensedata (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep Frankly, I agree with reasoning behind this nomination (and the last three nominations), but Patar knight convincingly made the case for keeping it last AfD--I can't really put up an argument against what was laid out there, and I would encourage would-be deleters take a look at it. I would support pruning some of the more promotional/not notable material apparently added by JunIper herself, though. Theodore Christopher (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patar Knight's response is not convincing when referring to BLP1E and certainly doesn't hold up in 2025. I still believe the article should be deleted because the Patar's argument overstates the junlper’s significance. The so-called "in-depth" coverage from sources like Rolling Stone or BuzzFeed News is more about the viral moments—"goblin mode" or the Snickers dickvein controversy—than Junlper. Junlper is not the focus of these pop news articles; the viral posts that junlper claims to have originated are. This doesn’t meet the standard of notability required for a biography, where the subject needs to be covered in a sustained, significant way as a person, not just as the source of a fleeting internet joke.

Patar's argument also leans heavily on the idea that being central to multiple viral moments negates BLP1E, but not every viral event has lasting cultural weight. These moments might have been funny or memorable in the moment, but that doesn’t mean they are significant enough to stand out against other internet jokes and be immortalized on Wikipedia. Otherwise, we’re opening the door to articles about every niche internet figure who happens to trend for a day or two.

This feels like an attempt to stretch the guidelines to justify Junlper's inclusion. The coverage cited, even if there’s a fair amount of it, doesn’t make Junlper notable in a way that fits the purpose of Wikipedia. Viral internet content thrives in forums and social media, but Wikipedia is meant to document subjects with enduring cultural, historical, or encyclopedic value. This article doesn’t meet that bar. Delete. 184.190.157.40 (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Pruning some of the more promotional/not notable material apparently added by JunIper herself" would probably leave this article even more barren than it already is. Doombruddah (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (edit conflict) It's close for me, but the repeated coverage addressing the individual behind the account and reference to their interactions with other notable people getting picked up in RS media/scholarship leads me to believe that, against all odds, this person is notable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've already said my peace, but to reinstate:

If you are to keep this, it should absolutely be re-worded, it reads like parody. "American shitposter"? Really? Catturd is the only other article on this website (and i don't like it there either) that uses this word to describe a person. I would argue she isn't really known for much outside of just another leftist twitter account, and this article is probably the only place that defines this user as being known for "goblin mode", a term which is only really known for being Oxford's 2022 word of the year and not much else. Even that isn't very notable, it was chosen from weak competition such as "metaverse" and an irrelevant hashtag. It was also chosen from an online poll, which are usually not trustworthy. This leaves the titular "snickers dick vein", the shortest section of the article, as their second claim to fame. I don't think this is notable; people lie all the time on the internet. The "backlash" lasted less than a week before being fact-checked by Snopes and clarified by Snickers themselves the next day. That leaves us with a few viral tweets that some journalists thought were worthy of using. Not really notable.

Not to make a "give into bullying" argument but if an article has been nominated for deletion so many times with so many close votes, you should probably just delete it already. Doombruddah (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a term which is only really known for being Oxford's 2022 word of the year and not much else is not as strong an argument as you appear to think. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it is when that "award" is only selected by public poll, and hasn't been relevant in over 2 years. It has exactly zero cultural significance FullMetalKaiju (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously this is not a typical encyclopedic article, but I stand by my (extensive) arguments made in the previous AfD. BLP1E does not apply and the sources show continued and in-depth coverage over several years that meet our notability standards. Also, after the last AfD (which was only four months ago!), I found an academic commentary, not a peer-reviewed article, but still subject to some editorial oversight, analyzing her suspension through a critical theory lenses from July 2024. [41] (accessible via Wikipedia Library. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, Internet, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia needs to have some standards for who gets an article. A random person with an extremely small internet following should not automatically get a Wikipedia page. Also, putting something in the "Chicago rat hole"? That's noteworthy of putting on an online encyclopedia? Please delete this page.--JonathanMRosenberg (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to cite any Wikipedia notability standards (WP:NOTABILITY) that you believe this person does not meet? ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass notability guidelines, the only thing she is known for would be Goblin mode, and that part of her article can be merged into the other article. Everything else is unnoteworthy and is only suitible of a fandom wiki, not Wikipedia. Jenkowelten (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have seen far more notable people have pages deleted for lack of notability. It is additionally fairly transparent that large portions of this article were written by its subject. O5225 (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to cite any Wikipedia notability standards (WP:NOTABILITY) that you believe this person does not meet? ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clear WP:SIGCOV from Insider, Rolling Stone, and Buzzfeed News. The articles are all about different topics so it doesn't seem to be a WP:BLP1E. Note: I saw the viral tweet calling for the article's deletion, but did not see the AFD until coming to the page to read the article out of curiosity. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 13:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Anything potentially relevant about this person should be merged to Goblin mode, clearly not relevant by themselves and does not meet notability guidelines outside of a very small niche. News articles will take any viral tweet and write headlines for a week, doesn't automatically make the twitter account notable. Too many primary sources too. Also, what on Earth is that part about the Chicago rat hole? jolielover♥talk 15:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also like to add, small mentions in articles do not warrant a page. Some sources mention her as a footnote, like the Vox article about the Hogwarts video game, saying "this person on twitter thought this" how on earth is this remotely relevant or notable? jolielover♥talk 16:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article clearly does not meet any kind of encyclopaedic standard, there is an already-existing goblin mode article and beyond their involvement in that phenomenon the person covered is not worth an article. SelketCadmium (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to cite any Wikipedia notability standards (WP:NOTABILITY) that you believe this person does not meet? ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article contains multiple reliable sources, and is well-cited. Most of the news items have been archived in order to allow easy access to the articles. The best three articles are Messenger [42], Insider [43], and Rolling Stone [44]. In addition there are (minor) mentions from additional reliable sources including the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the Guardian. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple reliable sources does not automatically mean an article is warranted; most sources in the article only mention the user in a fleeting footnote, even simply linking a tweet. An alarming amount of sources are also primary ones from the user themselves (See their tweets and the Chicago rathole bit). People can have dozens upon dozens of sources and still not have an article, like Errol Musk. This particular Twitter user is often just mentioned as "oh, X topic is trending on Twitter today, let's link some popular tweet relating to the topic", like this source which literally just links the tweet, provides no additional commentary (and you can't even see the tweet), yet is linked as a source to the "In March 2023..." sentence. The source literally does not support that sentence at all. Though at face value it looks like a well cited article, it really is not. jolielover♥talk 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:BLP1E doesn't apply and the subject meets the criteria for notability. ItsMarkWbu (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this person is notable. She has a large account and made a few viral posts but so have thousands of other people — do they all deserve articles? SelketCadmium (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this is a keep or no consensus, can we have a moratorium? This is the fourth time it's been nominated, the second time in the last six months. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reads closer to a fandom page than an Encyclopedic article. A majority of sources are either junk, fluff, or primary tweets themselves (most secondary sources simply mention a single tweet by the person and do not focus on them), and the ones that are by reputable sources barely make the standard for notability. Goblin mode is its own page, and a single tweet about a "dick vein" does not notability make, regardless of coverage (if anything, it should simply be on the Snickers page.) DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Many of the topics in this article are not relevant to anything important and anything relevant about Junlper should just be merged with the Goblin Mode article. Some sources in this article are also unreliable (such as X (formerly twitter) and Bluesky. Other references are articles in news outlets such as Vox and The Washington Post with only minor mentions of Junlper. 156.57.118.166 (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The cited sources focus on fleeting viral moments rather than providing substantial coverage of the individual. Any relevant content could be merged into related topics (which in this case may also not meet notability standards), but this standalone page lacks the enduring significance required for inclusion. Dynamokankaku (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keeping this article sets a precedent for every single person who makes a viral twitter post to deserve their own Wikipedia article. minecrafter523 (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kioumars Pourhashemi

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

Doesn't seem to be that important. All references are in passing or about his death, probably can be mentioned as a section in 2024 Battle of Aleppo Ladsgroup^overleg 17:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I made this article because I believe he was an important figure in a very important event that led to the downfall of Syria. History is important. Yesyesmrcool (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Iran. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can be considered as a soldier killed in action. He is merely a member of the IRGC forces involved in the 2024 Battle of Aleppo, but not a key member. Jeeputer ^Talk 17:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - on one hand, his rank of Second brigadier general (Iran) does not automatically pass WP:MIL, but he was not an ordinary soldier. On the other hand, he did get WP:SIGCOV in the Jerusalem Post and other reliable media. Bearian (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep(?) Quoting from this page: "Researchers Hassan Hassan and Michael Weiss argued that Pourhashemi's death -along with a number of other senior officers- greatly contributed to the collapse of the loyalist defenses of Aleppo." Sounds like a credible claim to lasting significance, though it depends on how much is being carried by the "other senior officers". Koopinator (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lukáš Hurt

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

Biography of a trade journalist and cannabis activist fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO for lack of WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. The sources in the article (and found in WP:BEFORE) are either WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, non-independent, or database sources. He also fails to qualify under any criterion of WP:NCHESS. (Translated from cz-wiki and no comment on notability standards there, but this falls short for en-wiki.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, and Czech Republic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Can you find any trade journalist and activist that actually meets WP:GNG? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like Rosa Parks? There are a ton of activists that were notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shuvalov

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

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov (recently unanimously deleted). WP:GUNREL (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#genealogy.eu), WP:OR, fails WP:GNG. ~~Rule of thumb: if a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik without a source, that's a red flag.~~ (No objection to keeping Category:Shuvalov family for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value). NLeeuw (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, and Russia. NLeeuw (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiably notable noble family in encyclopedias, eg "Шуваловы" . Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (in Russian). 1906.. Wiipedians simply don't care. --Altenmann >talk 18:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article in Russian Wikipedia has a ton of references, if one is interested in improving. "If a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik..." - this family never claimed great antiquity, for what I know, and it was never listed among Rurikids. Nevertheless it was the "crème de la crème" of the Russian aristocracy from the reign of Empress Elizabeth until the end of the empire. Ghirla^-трёп- 17:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. This is one of very few Russian noble families which don't claim descent from Rurik. NLeeuw (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read up on both Russian history and genealogy to make such odd claims. Ghirla^-трёп- 09:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no valid reason given for deletion; there's no wild claim in the article about descent from early modern times. In fact, it lists several verifiable notable members. Bearian (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Romodanovsky family

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

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov (recently unanimously deleted). WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR, fails WP:GNG. Rule of thumb: if a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik without a source, that's a red flag. (No objection to keeping Category:Romodanovsky family for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value). NLeeuw (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, and Russia. NLeeuw (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiably notable noble family in encyclopedias, eg "Ромодановские" . Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (in Russian). 1906.. Wiipedians simply don't care. --Altenmann >talk 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand what is questioned in this nomination. The notability of one of the top boyar families? "If a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik without a source, that's a red flag" - utter tosh. The family has been extinct for 300 years, so it does not claim anything. But every source on Russian genealogy (starting from the Gosudarev Rodoslovets of 1555) confirms that the Romodanovsky family is indeed Rurikid. Ghirla^-трёп- 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are added to the article and written up in context. Potentially this is notable, but right now it's unsourced. I'm willing to change my mind. Bearian (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is actually a famous family that deserves a separate page, as follows from Russian language sources on this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The most famous representative of this family was of course Fyodor Romodanovsky, "a monstrum by appearance, a vicious tyrant by character". He liked personally beheading people, sometimes several in a row. My very best wishes (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obolensky

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

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov (recently unanimously deleted). WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR, fails WP:GNG. Rule of thumb: if a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik without a source, that's a red flag. (No objection to keeping Category:Obolensky family for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value). NLeeuw (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, and Russia. NLeeuw (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiably notable noble family in encyclopedias, eg "Оболенские, княжеский род" . Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (in Russian). 1906.. Wiipedians simply don't care. --Altenmann >talk 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noble families, especially princely families are by definition notable, as their members are listed in official genealogies and studied by multitude of genealogists. It is irrelevant if the princes Obolensky were actually descendants of Rurik, Imperial Russia considered them as such, as exemplified by their use of the title prince and their inclusion in the Velvet Book.
I read Nederlandse Leeuw's rant on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov. It reads like an anti-royalist, French revolutionary attack on nobility in general. Unfortunately the Ancien Régime was non-egalitarian. Social status and thus notability followed family lines. There are corresponding family articles is six other languages. The Russian language article list about 30 family members with Wikipedia articles. The corresponding category has 106 articles and 15 subcategories. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I may have employed much sarcasm in my rationale on the preceding AfD, but I write about royalty and nobility all the time. E.g. look at my recent article Olgovichi. The issue I have is with unsourced or poorly sourced claims about where certain families came from that are just unencyclopedic rubbish and fail WP:GNG. NLeeuw (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Petri Krohn. We have lots of articles about notable families. In the old days, the aristocracy had all the political, social, and economic power. One could say that we are living through similar circumstances. In any case, there are literally dozens of notable people who have this last name, and the longstanding consensus is to bunch them into an article as well as a category. Also, before proposing deleting an article, see if it can be expanded from other languages and do at least a basic Internet search. Bearian (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I write about royalty and nobility all the time. E.g. look at my recent article Olgovichi. The issue I have is with unsourced or poorly sourced claims about where certain families came from that are just unencyclopedic rubbish and fail WP:GNG. NLeeuw (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The current "keep" arguments are rather weak: just being a noble family is not enough for notability, we need multiple independent sources that treat the subject in-depth. A listing is not enough. Perhaps the articles in other languages provide some useful sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if reformatted as a surname page, which it almost is already - there are plenty of Obolenskys to populate it. A rather bizarre and possibly POINT-y nomination. Ingratis (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

House of Lobanov-Rostovsky

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

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov (recently unanimously deleted). WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR, fails WP:GNG. Rule of thumb: if a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik without a source, that's a red flag. (No objection to keeping Category:Lobanov-Rostovsky family for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value). NLeeuw (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, and Russia. NLeeuw (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Yes, there was this noble family, but it seems there is no in-depth coverage besides genealogy lists. They do have rurikid origin, but I am not sure it counts to claim for notability. --Altenmann >talk 18:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The family is listed in principal families in the European book with clear description of its coat of arms [45] and of course in the Russian Velvet Book by the author Aleksey Lobanov-Rostovsky, a familiy member himself, hence passes GNG. The family has a museum dedicated to them [[46]] and the palace in St. Petersburg underlines the notability. Of course the article needs some cleanup to have proper references.

Moreover the Yamagata–Lobanov Agreement gives the family name quite some name recognition. Axisstroke (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, (a) listing does not count for WP:GNG, which requires in-depth coverage. (b) Notability not inherited and Yamagata–Lobanov Agreement is irrelevant for an article about noble family. --Altenmann >talk 21:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The family is a principal family hence by definition notable as declared both on the Velvet book and other listings. Axisstroke (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, in Wikipedia we have our own criteria for notability. Nobility listings contain thousands of petty noble families. In Poland 20% of population used to be szlachta. In Russian Empire every petty warlord on a hill in Caucasus Mountains was given a title of knyaz during "appeasement" of the area. And so on. Merely listing is insufficient to establish notability in en-wiki. --Altenmann >talk 04:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - as noted many times at AfD and other fora, you need to take a look at the sources on other languages' Wikipedia articles on the topic. You also can't take one isolated fact that needs citation as a reason to delete. I'd recommend advocates of keeping the article substantially to add the sources, in context, so that it passes [WP:HEY]]. Bearian (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, your vote violates WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN not to say WP:AGF (suggesting lack of due diligence). If one looks at the ruwiki article, nothing there indicates in-depth coverage beyond genealogy books (Russian: . Родословный сборник, родословная книга. Родословная роспись, Генеалогическое древо. Even "Лобановы-Ростовские" . Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (in Russian). 1906. is little beyond name-throwing. --Altenmann >talk 04:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  This has been tagged for GNG since 2017 by someone else. It's not just me saying this now.
  And als Altenmann points out, the articles in other languages are essentially just as bad:
  - lv:Lobanovi–Rostovski is WP:UNSOURCED
  - et:Lobanov-Rostovski is 2 WP:SPSes and 1 book from 1854 (WP:AGEMATTERS)
  - de:Lobanow-Rostowski has 1 WP:FAIL, because the claim Die Familie, eine Seitenlinie der Rurikiden, soll auf Juri Dolgoruki (1090–1157), Fürst von Rostow, Großfürst der Kiewer Rus und Gründer von Moskau, ein Sohn des Kiewer Großfürsten Wladimir Monomachs (1053–1125), zurückgehen. Sein Nachkomme war Fürst Wasilko Konstantinowitsch von Rostow (1208–1238). is not supported by this website where you can buy a painting (!) of 'Der Heilige Fürst Wassili Konstantinowitsch von Rostow'; plus 1 book from 1894 (WP:AGEMATTERS)
  - ru:Лобановы-Ростовские has
    1 collection of manuscripts from somewhere in the 17th century ru:Родословные росписи конца XVII века, which is just plain WP:PRIMARY
    
    1 book from 1776 (! WP:AGEMATTERS)
    
    1 book from 1787 (! WP:AGEMATTERS)
    
    1 book from 1810 (! WP:AGEMATTERS) ru:Родословная книга М. Г. Спиридова
    
    1 book from 1854 (WP:AGEMATTERS)
    
    1 book from 1886 ru:Родословный сборник русских дворянских фамилий (WP:AGEMATTERS)
    
    1 book from 1890 (WP:AGEMATTERS)
    
    A museum deadlink
    
    A worldportrait.org deadlink
    
    An archived press release / advertisment for visiting a museum
    
    1 book from 1991 that is not actually used (no in-line citations)
    
    1 book from 2011 that is not actually used (no in-line citations), and appears to be a reprint of WP:PRIMARY ru:Родословная книга М.А. Оболенского from c. 1600 (!)
    
    1 entry in the Russian Biographical Dictionary of 1905 that is not actually used (no in-line citations)
    
    1 1906 Brockhaus and Efron passing mention which Altenmann already assessed as little beyond name-throwing; and finally
    
    4 unreliable WP:SELFPUB genealogy websites, including the notoriously unreliable WP:ANCESTRY.COM.
  In short, it's a lot of hot air. The few relatively modern sources that might be reliable are not even used, are reprints of WP:PRIMARY sources that are not critically examined, or provide so little information that they do not constitute WP:SIGCOV. NLeeuw (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if reformatted as a surname page, which it virtually is already, + rename to Lobanov-Rostovsky. Ingratis (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Santuḷā

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

An unsourced page about a regional Indian dish. It fails WP:GNG for lack of sourcing (in WP:BEFORE search, all I found were blogs, some YouTube videos and other WP:USERGENERATED sources). It also fails WP:NOTHOWTO; Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Draftified a few days ago and then returned to mainspace by the creator with no improvements, so draftification is not an option. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Odisha. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noam Ross

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

I'm not sure this article meets WP:GNG. Ross is only mentioned in passing in a small number of secondary sources and none of those secondary sources are explicitly about him. Velayinosu (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Science. Velayinosu (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree that I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass, but there might be a WP:NPROF pass for his research work. His citation count is decent, and his work on things like consulting on COVID-19 modelling and creating some very widely used R packages might get him close to C4/C7. I'm not sure the case is strong enough, but am interested to hear what others think. MCE89 (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, COVID-19, Medicine, California, New York, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Meko

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. The subject lacks significant independent sources to establish notability, as most sources are primary, local, or promotional. The achievements mentioned (e.g., DJ performances, single releases) are insufficient to demonstrate notability. The article's promotional tone further detracts from its encyclopedic value. Deletion is recommended unless substantial, reliable sources are provided. Jaypung (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The user Injusticegod edited the same article on Simple English Wikipedia Marko Meko and subsequently recreated the article here on Standard English Wikipedia. This raises concerns about a COI or UPE. Please consider this context during the discussion. Jaypung (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Egypt. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Vaughn Blake

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

Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC/ WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, American football, Tennessee, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some sources: [47][48][49][50][51][52][53] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these, and discovering the name was misspelled. That error obviously impacted my earlier search for references.4meter4 (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Rossi (footballer, born 1982)

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

This AfD might be the same issue as Juan Alberto Ramírez that was nominated back in November. Even by searching for his name in combination of clubs he played for, I did not find any significant coverage of Paolo Rossi (footballer, born 1982) to meet WP:GNG. He only played one match for Torino in 2001/02 season, one of the professional football clubs in Italy, before moving to amateur leagues then disappeared for over two decades. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Italy. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – The fact that he is a homonym hinders the search, but it is still possible to confirm the athlete's career at the first levels of Italian football. [54], [55], [56]. Svartner (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Sources above from Svartner are 2 x database and 1 x profile from the league he played in. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ilcalcio provides detailed information, but I agree that more informative sources are missing. Svartner (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Those are database sources which do not count towards significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly didn't read the source, or are you confused with Tutto Calciatore. There is a good coverage of the athlete's career and not just statistical data. The problem is that as I explained, the player is a homonym, so additional sources to ensure WP:SIGCOV are harmed/difficult to search. It's a more complex case than usual. Svartner (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner, Il Calcio is AI-generated. JoelleJay (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete—Although I agree that the sources listed above are "not nothing," they are not WP:SIGCOV in my view. Anwegmann (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think we have the bare minimum of sourcing. I did find some passing mentions in an Italian source search which are definitely him from his Serie B days. SportingFlyer T·C 03:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the exact references? Passing mentions obviously don't count towards significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Il Calcio is clearly an AI-generated summary of his stats (as are all profiles on that site; GPTzero gave all the ones I tested 100% probability of being AI-generated). LegaPro is a blog network, and anyway it's a routine transfer announcement of mostly quotes. Tutto Calciatori is a database. JoelleJay (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups

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

Fails WP:NFILM. After multiple draftifications of the name variations this has been created under, an attempt at a redirect, now here we are. Nothing notable about the production and film still has no release date. Was scheduled for April and now nothing is confirmed. Would suggest a redirect or draftify but again, those WP:ATD have been explored. CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Previous deletion discussion here under one of the alternative names. Also see Draft:Toxic (2025 Film) (declined in November), Toxic (Indian film), Draft:Toxic (film) and Draft:Toxic (2025 Indian film). Other drafts have been merged or deleted under other names and I cannot find the history of those at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the main difference from the past AfD is that the film has commenced and completed filming. The big question though is if the coverage is in-depth enough to pass NFF. Unfortunately a lot of pre-release coverage (unless it's some majorly huge blockbuster) tends to be based on a couple of press releases. India related films seem to be particularly prone to this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I will say in this version's defense, this is better sourced than the one declined at AfC and the one that was previously deleted at AfD. It's all going to depend on whether the sourcing gives a good depth of coverage. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100% better referenced. The issue, which you talked about, is the quality of the press. A lot of this is churnalism, pre-release promotion, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I don't see significant coverage about the production and since it has not yet been released (and as of now we don't know if it will - the best clue is "possibly" December 2025) so there isn't even a review for it. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously an upcoming film from any industry won't have reviews and production details will be limited to avoid spoilers. Release date changes are common, even for Hollywood films such as Mickey 17, which had it's release date changed thrice (no "significant" production details are available for that film as well, and yet, that article has existed since principal photography began 3 years ago in 2022). Coming to Toxic, it has similar coverage beyond press-releases, including in the American media such as Variety, Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, to name a few. Not that Indian cinema needs validation from the West, but that sadly seems to be the case with Wikipedia. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Indian cinema shouldn't need validation from the West. However, it must still have significant coverage that shows how it is notable. Mickey 17 is an WP:OSE argument. Looking at the press for this film which you cited above, they are all based on press releases and are simple churnalism. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing even the American media houses like Variety, Deadline Hollywood, and The Hollywood Reporter of paid "churnalism" when it comes to reporting on Indian cinema? Also, OSE is an essay and not a policy, and as valid as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am making that accusation. But, keep in mind that churnalism doesn't need to be "paid." I think you are making an accusation that I am pulling things out of my rear with the IDONTLIKEIT comment. If so, please remember WP:CIVIL. If I read that wrong, then my apologies in advance. As far as OSE, one cannot dismiss it just for being an essay. It is widely cited and applies regularly in deletion discussions.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IDONTLIKEIT is as "widely cited" as OSE and is not a CIVIL violation. Even so, my statement was "OSE is an essay and not a policy, and as valid as IDONTLIKEIT", which in no way was directed *at* you. I have been perfectly civil with you, so please do not accuse me of doing things that I'm not doing. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misinterpret what I said. I never accused you of being uncivil. I merely explained how I interpreted what you said and actually apologized in advance if I read it wrong (written words are hard to interpret at times). --CNMall41 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've taken a look at the sourcing and offhand, I have to say that I'm going to say that I'm kind of undecided on whether or not this passes NFF. The basic question we need to answer here is this: if the film were to never release, is the current sourcing enough to pass NFF?

The film industry in India is particularly prone to churnalism. That's kind of a fact of life, so when it comes to sourcing we can't just look at the quantity and publications - we have to look at the content as well. Offhand, I can't help but notice that the coverage is predominantly pre-filming. There's a decent variety of coverage here, as it's not too overly repetitive (ie, not all based on the same handful of press releases). However I'd like to see more coverage of the filming process, as it's not really resolving that basic question/concern. The Variety source is OK, however coverage of trailers tends to be seen as routine unless we have some sort of reaction to the trailer - like a review of sorts. That's missing in this Variety source, however I will note that I found it in this Collider source.

Offhand I'd like to look for more here. It's heartening to see that coverage for this is still rolling in, even with the absence of a set release date. It's not a situation where filming ended and there's just almost complete silence - the current coverage does give off the impression that it will release eventually. The question here is whether or not any of that coverage contains sourcing that could help show this passes NFF. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This film clearly meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for films (NFF), thanks to the wide range of independent and credible sources covering it. Outlets like Variety and Collider are reputable and provide detailed information about the film's production and promotion. Yes, a lot of the coverage so far focuses on pre-filming, but that's completely normal for any film, especially one that's building buzz. Early coverage is part of how films establish their presence in the public eye. And here's the thing, as mentioned by ReaderofthePack, the coverage is still coming in, even without a set release date. There are no signs or credible reports indicating that the film won't release, so assuming otherwise would be speculative and just assumptions. On the contrary, the ongoing and consistent media attention suggests strong interest and momentum behind the project. The argument about 'churnalism' in the Indian film industry also feels overly broad. Sure, some media outlets might lean promotional, but you can't paint all coverage with the same brush. Notable global names like Variety, Deadline, Hollywood Reporter and Collider have written about this film. Finally, Wikipedia shouldn't focus on predicting the future and focus documenting what's notable right now. And based on the sourcing and interest this film has already generated, it's clearly notable. Shecose (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not all coverage is painted with the same brush. However, it is not an overly broad assertion since the community has come to a consensus and created an information section about it called WP:NEWSORGINDIA. It is also concerning that you have bludgeoned the process in order to help promote the film. Wikipedia is not here as a promotional tool for film studios. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We both edit warred to maintain our views regarding this article. Repeatedly re-draftifying the article after objections from others and redirecting it thrice despite being edited by multiple editors without any discussion, is also a significant concern, also shared by others in the 3RR. You have also acted in a hostile manner towards me by reporting me in various places for questioning your actions while preaching cooperation and civility to others (as above). Now that we are here, let's focus on discussing the article and its notability. The article clearly meets the notability criteria based on the provided references. Also, I'm not sure how much you understand about films and fandom culture in India. Fans often get excited about their stars and their films, leading them to search and edit in this space. However, this doesn't necessarily mean they are promoting the film. Shecose (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian phonk

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

Expired then contested PROD. Concern was: The article's text is overly promotional and almost all claims failed verification from cited sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Brazil. UtherSRG (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phonk#Subgenres – As WP:ATD. The rhythm is not notable for its own article, but it can be mentioned in the aforementioned section. Svartner (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep or soft redirect to wikt:Brazilian phonk. Phonk editors rejected it within the subgenre section. It will probably never be there. Maybe in Funk carioca. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Anglican Church of North America

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

I find no evidence that this organization passes WP:GNG or ever did. Its website is inactive, but archived versions ([57], [58]) have no listing of member congregations, and it appears that if it ever did have congregations they must have been very few. It is not mentioned in the two standard reference works on American Christian denominations (Kurian & Lamport or Melton, and Melton includes even the very smallest denominations). There is a single mention of it in a New York Times article about a church it supposedly recognized in Venezuela. It existed, that much is true, but beyond that anything that can be said about it fails WP:V. It doesn't reach GNG and it doesn't even reach the looser threshold described at WP:RELIGIONOUTCOMES. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Texas. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Andrew Weinreich

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

None of the articles are directly about the subject. Coverage is trivial. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to SixDegrees.com mentioned in [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], as one of the earlier social networking entrepreneurs. Andre🚐 07:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks significant coverage

Firecat (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helicarrier

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

This fails WP:SIGCOV. Most of the references are listicles that are either unreliable or not significant outside of discussions of Marvel and [S.H.I.E.L.D.]]. This could be redirected to S.H.I.E.L.D. with any passing mentions in sources that can be salvaged. Jontesta (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with the vehicles section of Features of the Marvel Universe in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once again there is no discussion of the results of the required WP:BEFORE search. The IGN article contains significant coverage for the specific version appearing in the video game. IGN also has another article on the production of the movie version. At Home in the Whedonverse has several shorter bits of analysis adding up. 100 Things Avengers Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die, p. 186-187, has a 1.5 page chapter dedicated to the helicarrier. (This project checks upon the realism of the movie helicarrier, but I am not quite sure how this was published.) "Closing the open signification: Forms of transmedial storyworlds and chronotopoi in comics" contains a discussion of the helicarrier and its importance across films. If all of that that is not deemed enough for a stand-alone article, it should be noted that while CBR and ScreenRant are generally not counted towards notability, but they are considered reliable sources for entertainment topics such as this. So content based on those should at least be WP:PRESERVEd in a merge to Features of the Marvel Universe#Vehicles and S.H.I.E.L.D.. Even the nomination suggests that, so I am wondering why we have a deletion rather than a merge discussion, as the WP:Guide to deletion states: "Consider whether you actually want the article to be merged, ... rather than deleted, and use the appropriate mechanism instead of AfD." Daranios (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moog Model 15

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

Wikipedia is not an advertizing tool. Information about this app can live as one line in the Moog wikipedia page and doesn't need a dedicated page. Warmonger123 (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid reason for deletion has been given: the article is not promotional in the sense meant on Wikipedia and, per WP:NOMERGE, a merge should be avoided if "the separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles". While I'm not the biggest fan of stubs, the following significant coverage from reliable sources shows a pass of WP:GNG and the possibility of expansion: Engadget: [65] [66] [67], Wired: [68], Sound on Sound: [69], MusicRadar: [70] [71], MusicTech: [72] [73], Sonicstate: [74] [75]. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 21:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, the article can be copyedited if the problem is promo. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://abc7ny.com/post/nyc-congestion-pricing-data-week-shows-75-fewer-vehicles-zone-faster-travel-mta-says/15796568/
^ "And here's a little comment, um, just from ... well yeah, Tim Peters himself put the code together in the end, and decided after ... He got very interested in playing with this, and experimenting with different options, and at the end, ah, settled for this one." At this point Wild's slides show, in one corner, a picture of an email from Peters announcing his acceptance of the Powersort modificiations
^ "Now, so far it sounds a little similar to bottom-up Mergesort, but remember in bottom-up Mergesort we use the queue, and we always paired up things as they arrived in the same order, and always pairs all the way back. And this really didn't work so well, which is something that Tim Peters realised, so instead he uses a different way. So he puts the runs on the stack, so the topmost is the most recent that you just discovered. And then there's the set of rules that tells you want to do. And I think these rules are still somewhat magic, that they work, at all. We'll see that they don't always work that great, indeed. But that's something that was just discovered a few years ago. And yeah, in Tim Peters' own words, these rules were the first thing he discovered that didn't obviously suck, so he stuck with them, but they're indeed not the most thoughtful part of Timsort."
^ "Why exactly these rules? Well! Tim even publicly confessed, so I'm just citing the bugtracker here, that he didn't spend so much time working on, working on those: it was the first thing that kind of worked, and he decided to stick with it, until ... unless there was a good reason not to, and at the time there was no good reason not to. Unfortunately there is a good reason not to."
^ "Just as an aside, 'Timsort' was—the name started as an inside joke among the core developers, and wasn't really Tim's choice. But yeah, it's got ... it stuck, and once the algorithm was exported to other libraries, it became known by that, so, ah ... be careful with choosing your names. I tried to give a name before I published the algorithm, so that this is off the plate."
^ "Again, Timsort did pioneering work in bringing such adaptive sorting to most modern standard libraries (including Python, Java, Android runtimes, the V8 Javascript engine, Rust, Swift, Apache Spark, Octave, and the NCBI C++ Toolkit), giving users linear complexity for sufficiently sorted inputs."
^ "Hence, the prominence of such a custom-made algorithm over previously preferred optimal algorithms contributed to the regain of interest in the study of sorting algorithms"

[1] ttps://abc7ny.com/post/nyc-congestion-pricing-data-week-shows-75-fewer-vehicles-zone-faster-travel-mta-says/15796568/

[wild_526_1-2] "And here's a little comment, um, just from ... well yeah, Tim Peters himself put the code together in the end, and decided after ... He got very interested in playing with this, and experimenting with different options, and at the end, ah, settled for this one." At this point Wild's slides show, in one corner, a picture of an email from Peters announcing his acceptance of the Powersort modificiations

[wild_526_2-3] "Now, so far it sounds a little similar to bottom-up Mergesort, but remember in bottom-up Mergesort we use the queue, and we always paired up things as they arrived in the same order, and always pairs all the way back. And this really didn't work so well, which is something that Tim Peters realised, so instead he uses a different way. So he puts the runs on the stack, so the topmost is the most recent that you just discovered. And then there's the set of rules that tells you want to do. And I think these rules are still somewhat magic, that they work, at all. We'll see that they don't always work that great, indeed. But that's something that was just discovered a few years ago. And yeah, in Tim Peters' own words, these rules were the first thing he discovered that didn't obviously suck, so he stuck with them, but they're indeed not the most thoughtful part of Timsort."

[wild_pycon_merging-4] "Why exactly these rules? Well! Tim even publicly confessed, so I'm just citing the bugtracker here, that he didn't spend so much time working on, working on those: it was the first thing that kind of worked, and he decided to stick with it, until ... unless there was a good reason not to, and at the time there was no good reason not to. Unfortunately there is a good reason not to."

[wild_pycon_timname-5] "Just as an aside, 'Timsort' was—the name started as an inside joke among the core developers, and wasn't really Tim's choice. But yeah, it's got ... it stuck, and once the algorithm was exported to other libraries, it became known by that, so, ah ... be careful with choosing your names. I tried to give a name before I published the algorithm, so that this is off the plate."

[6] "Again, Timsort did pioneering work in bringing such adaptive sorting to most modern standard libraries (including Python, Java, Android runtimes, the V8 Javascript engine, Rust, Swift, Apache Spark, Octave, and the NCBI C++ Toolkit), giving users linear complexity for sufficiently sorted inputs."

[7] "Hence, the prominence of such a custom-made algorithm over previously preferred optimal algorithms contributed to the regain of interest in the study of sorting algorithms"

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]