Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 01	February 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Gholam hossein Davani

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been around for more than 10 years and does not indicate how the subject is notable per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. All the sources given are to works written by him, not about him. The Persian language article does not seem to have much more in support of notability. ... discospinster _talk 23:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Business, and Iran. ... discospinster _talk 23:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom @LaundryPizza03. Eelipe (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Blatantly fails WP:GNG. This article has been tagged for notability concerns since 2015. There is just nothing to establish notability. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nigh-incoherent article. No sources to establish notability. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:G11 and nom. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yunus Emre Genç

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

No evidence of notability. Initially tagged with CSD A1, but it was removed by the original author of the article. Article was previously deleted. Limmidy (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Travel and tourism, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is an academic working on tourism and hospitality.[1] Turchla (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WPGNG and WP:NPROF. Don't have sources about notability. For today not notability yet. İmmortalance (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His Google Scholar profile [2] has citation counts that are too low to pass WP:PROF#C1. No other form of notability is apparent. The previous deletion was an A7 speedy, which does not allow us to immediately delete this as a re-creation of a deleted article (that would require a full prior AfD), and I think the claim of writing "popular scientific articles" is enough to save this version from A7, but without much stronger justification it is not enough to save it from AfD deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is one of the succesful young scholars, his count of citation is low on Google Scholar yet but, 70 is even good for his early stage academic career (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=WNDLyfgAAAAJ&hl=tr&oi=ao). However he wrote one article in German language as well. And sone others in english language. This is good paths for his early stage academic career. The academic has written autobiography and was guest on national tv channel. This enhances his recognition. He desires to be on wikipedia. His academic works have impact on wikipedia pages like decolonization and sone Sustainable Tourism. Turchla (talk) 02:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is on wikipedia’s different artcles in that case. Turchla (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign whatsoever of WP:NPROF for this recent PhD, nor of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks the necessary academic recognition for WP:NPROF and does not meet WP:GNG either. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 12:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sign of notability that passes NPROF or GNG. Maybe this professor will hit the mark in the future, but right now it's too soon to tell. Also, I'm concerned that Turchla has a COI here considering the statement, "He desires to be on wikipedia." This user has already been warned about COI editing, too, it appears. nf utvol (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Premier League awards

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

All this stuff can be and should be included within List of Indian Premier League records and statistics - similar to every other cricket leagues. Also, this page is just WP:NOTSTATS. Vestrian24Bio 04:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 04:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's unusual that I simply say, per nom, but in this case that applies. A redirect might be possible and might just stop this article getting re-created Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because the IPL takes every stat is can think of an then sells someone sponsorship for an "award" for it, that doesn't mean we need this awards article. All sufficiently covered in the stats article. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The closest analog is Women's Big Bash League, the longest-standing women's T20 franchise league. Women's Big Bash League#Season summaries has a table listing the recipients of the "Most runs", "Most wickets", "Player of the Tournament", and "Young Gun" awards for each season, essentially the same as IPL's "Orange Cap", "Purple Cap", "Most Valuable Player", and "Emerging Player" awards covered in this article. IPL's Orange and Purple Caps have also received significant independent coverage in major cricket news websites, such as ESPNcricinfo. The merge target proposed by @Vestrian24Bio, List of Indian Premier League records and statistics has a different scope, focusing on all-time records, analogous to Women's Big Bash League#Statistics and records. Finally, merging to Indian Premier League#Awards is not an option here as the main IPL article is 173,624 bytes (almost twice the size of the corresponding WBBL article). I would support the removal of sections covering sponsored awards of negligible importance — I would be surprised if the Visit Saudi beyond the boundary longest six award has received much independent coverage — but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Preimage (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Preimage: Not sure how this is relevant to WBBL, but even WBBL doesn't have separate articles for this... And also ESPNcricinfo isn't a news website but a WP:ROUTINE coverage. Vestrian24Bio 12:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vestrian24Bio, you stated similar to every other cricket [league] — which is manifestly not the case. ESPNcricinfo (together with The Cricket Monthly, its longform magazine) is widely considered to be one of the top non-paywalled websites covering cricket. Even Wisden's weighted in here — admittedly, the first hit I found was an article on how cricket's long-standing focus on aggregate runs is statistically illiterate and should be replaced with Moneyball-style advanced metrics — but the point is that these awards are considered to be conventionally important. I'd support a merge into Indian Premier League if we could combine the 4/5 most important awards into a single table as the WBBL article manages to do. Merging into the records and statistics article isn't really an option though, its scope is just too different. Preimage (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Awards like Orange Cap, Purple Cap and MVP are all noteworthy and covered widely not only in India but outside India too: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. In India, any changes to the holders of these caps and leaderboards receive extensive coverage throughout the season: [10] [11] [12] [13]. In fact, the caps are physically worn on the field by their current holders over the course of the tournament, so these are actual awards with significance and not just stats. As such, merging this article with the proposed target would not be appropriate. A like-for-like comparison would be the FIFA World Cup awards article which covers awards such as Golden Ball, Golden Boot and Golden Glove. The delete voters sound a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Yuvaank (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF, my vote is based on this being a WP:CFORK of the stats article. I know what all these "awards" are. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except it isn't a WP:CFORK of the stats article and are actual notable awards as can be seen with the sources I presented. Your usage of double quotes for the word awards just goes to illustrate WP:IDONTKNOWIT unfortunately. Yuvaank (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, FIFA World Cup awards won't even be a proper comparison as it's an international competition as opposed to IPL which is a domestic competition. Vestrian24Bio 03:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is a domestic competition or international is besides the point. The basic premise of your nomination is that these awards are not notable and are merely stats. I presented sources from 6 different countries that prove that these are indeed awards–notable ones at that–which have received sustained coverage globally over the years. FWIW, here are some awards from domestic competitions: La Liga Awards, Premier League Golden Boot, Premier League Golden Glove, Bundesliga Awards. You also invoked WP:CONSISTENT in your nomination statement, which is a policy on article titles. Yuvaank (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERIT, individual coverage of Orange Cap and Purple Cap wouldn't make the list notable. Vestrian24Bio 01:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERIT is an essay and not a guideline/policy set in stone. The notability of the list itself is established by articles such as Scroll.in, The Indian Express, India Today, News18 and Wisden. It is seems individual articles on Indian Premier League Orange Cap and Indian Premier League Purple Cap, which were created by @Magentic Manifestations back in 2015, were merged into this list by @Vin09. I can see the reasoning behind the merge, although these two awards are likely to be notable in their own right. Yuvaank (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - People arguing for this topic being notable are arguing on the basis of individual items listed in it being notable, but notability is not inherited. Neither can an sub-topic inherit the notability of an over-arching topic, nor can an over-arching topic inherit the notability of sub-topics within it. Fails WP:LISTN. FOARP (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. IPL's yearly awards are presented as part of the post-match ceremony at the end of each IPL final. They are covered as a group each year in regular news coverage of the final (e.g. [14]), as well as in post-season articles like [15] (comparing ESPNcricinfo's own set of awards to the official IPL 2023 Orange Cap, Purple Cap, Player of the Final, and Player of the Tournament awards). Preimage (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I'd appreciate it if you could also comment on the merge suggestions: the original nominator's comment All this stuff can be and should be included within List of Indian Premier League records and statistics sounds like a proposed merge (to be posted at WP:PM) rather than an AfD nomination to me. If you do consider a merge appropriate, I'd argue that Indian Premier League#Awards would be the best target (as this list was a WP:SUBARTICLE split off for reasons of length), but I'm open to other suggestions: you clearly have more policy expertise in this space than I do. Preimage (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be OK with a redirect/merge - it's verifiable content. Not sure about those sources: the first seems to be about the ceremony, the second about Cricinfo's stats. FOARP (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: sourcing, I'm working off WP:SIGCOV, which states "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, ... [it] is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The topic of the article we are looking at is 'who won the IPL awards each season?'

The first source is titled IPL 2024 final awards and prize money: Complete list of winners including Orange Cap, Purple Cap and more. It's a beat report to inform readers 'who won stuff last night?', which starts by covering the events of the final, before switching to the award winners. It has a paragraph covering (what it presumably considers to be) the three most important awards, the Orange Cap, Purple Cap, and Emerging Player of the Season, then provides a full list of winners. While the article doesn't go into a huge amount of detail on each award besides listing its monetary value, the list of award winners shares primary-topic status with the winners of the final.

The second source is an ESPNCricinfo post-season analytics article discussing who they consider to be the most impactful players from the 2023 season. It closely references the major IPL award-winners, starting with its opening phrase: Faf du Plessis, and not Shubman Gill, is the most valuable player of the IPL 2023. It reminds readers that Shubman Gill won the MVP and Orange Cap awards two paragraphs later: The Player-of-the-Tournament and the Orange Cap winner Gill was part of a team that had more batters who took up the slack, before noting the Emerging Player of the Season, Yashasvi Jaiswal, was 3rd in their ranking. After more batting discussion, it switches to the bowlers: Mohammed Shami - the Purple Cap winner - came second to Siraj in terms of Bowling Impact per match. While the IPL awards are only a secondary topic of this article, it discusses the four most important/prestigious season-length player award-winners in detail, alongside comparisons to the players their analytics suggest were statistically the best. Preimage (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ESPNcricinfo sources fall under WP:ROUTINE coverage. Vestrian24Bio 03:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ESPNcricinfo article we've been discussing here is clearly an in-depth news/analytics article (WP:INDEPTH), rather than WP:ROUTINE event coverage. To quote @Black Kite from the latest (2023) WP:RSN discussion in which Cricinfo/ESPNcricinfo is mentioned, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 417#Reliability of cricket databases:
You're assuming that both sites are purely databases. They aren't. They're actually some of the highest quality sources for cricket, regardless of the fact that their websites also include databases.

Preimage (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERIT is an essay though, not a policy or guideline. The list's notability can be established by articles such as Scroll.in, The Indian Express, India Today, News18 and Wisden. Yuvaank (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the discussion on what should happen with this article continues up to today. There doesn't seem to be much debate about sourcing but about whether or not this article is a FORK and whether the content are just stats or notable subjects in their own right. And in the past day, participants have brought up the possibility of a Merge which I think is due more consideration. But if participants could just refer to policies, not essays, and give fuller arguments than just a Keep or Delete and consider other options, it will make closing this discussion in a few days easier.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTSTATS must apply here. ReturnDuane (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources provided here indicate that these awards are considered as a group and meet WP:LISTN. Not sure why WP:NOTSTATS is being cited here, since indicating who wins an award is not a "stat". Yes some of the awards are for things like "most runs" but other awards are for subjective things like Player of the Final, Best Emerging, Best Catch. This is no different from most other major sports leagues where there will be awards for most goals, best save percentage, etc. and isn't a NOTSTATS violation. Even if the list as a whole lacks notability, then the obvious solution would be to create individual articles for each of these awards, since as many even delete !voters have noted, these awards do get more coverage as individual awards and likely meet WP:GNG, than as a group. Merging with List of Indian Premier League records and statistics also makes no sense, since at least the non-objective awards would be neither records or statistics and would require a rename of that page. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems to me that Information architecture is one of the sources of disagreement between editors: where should this topic / these topics be covered in Wikipedia to best serve our users? The AfD relisters have encouraged us to consider whether other options would allow us to reach consensus, and @Patar knight's note that this article could be split into separate articles (for the top 3–4 awards) seems like a reasonable approach to me. Reviewing the options listed in WP:Deletion process#Common outcomes, we could implement this via a merge to Indian Premier League#Awards followed by an immediate split to other articles, or alternatively, via dabification. I would be happy to change my !vote to support either of these two implementations. Preimage (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Indian Premier League records and statistics, though this should be a talk page discussion. Sandstein 09:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at worst merge. The half-dozen player and team awards of the IPL are unquestionably notable - plenty of sources have been provided above. I don't see how NOTINHERITED and NOTSTATS apply; there is encyclopedic context established by the sources in the article, and in any case those guidelines need to be applied with common sense, else we would want to delete any spinoffs of major tournaments. There is arguably enough content that a spinoff from the statistics article (which is primarily overall statistics, rather than awards by season) is reasonable, though I'm not strictly opposed to a merge. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist but this is beginning to look like a No consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naf War

AfDs for this article:

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

This war is at best a clash with RS attesting it as a event that fails WP:MILNG with routine coverage only. I performed a search and went through sources used on the article and found the following:

van Schendel (in English) does not mention this clash. I added this source to the article because:
van Schendel (translated in 2017) mentions this clash in passing as happening in 2001
Ahmed (Jago News) explicitly discusses how the Naf War was exaggerated by Major General Fazlur Rahman on a talk show.
Tehran Times - article I was able to find through a google search, not the most reliable but is mostly routine coverage from 13 Januray 2001
BBC - article I restored from the 1st deletion, which also describes a short clash on 8 January 2001 and was absent from this article was re-created.
Mahbub Miah (alo.com.bd) describes the War as starting in January 1 2000 and has questionable neutrality and is the lone standout
Online Bangla News- source is peacocking and is the only source that uses January 8 2000

At the very least, the last two sources disagree with other sources I could find and with each other. If we discard those two as unreliable sources, there is not enough coverage for a standalone article. This article should be deleted or at least dratified until a narrative can be ascertained from reliable sources.

For context, this article was deleted before for the same reason as a soft delete due to minimal participation. Editor recreated the article from scratch instead of undeleting. Please do note that I attempted to improve the article as I review and found sources, which is the reason for the directly contradictory information currently present. Prior to my edits, the narrative followed the Mahbub Miah source but with the dates from the Online Bangla News source. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 04:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 04:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 04:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The argument for the removal of this article is not valid. Sufficient references have been provided here, which detail the incident comprehensively. Claiming that the sources are unreliable does not seem appropriate, as the diversity of sources still represents a significant event.
Furthermore, various documents have been incorporated into the article, making the content more credible and informative. An article enriched with references and documents should not be deleted solely due to discrepancies among sources. Instead, such articles should be further improved through discussion and coordination to ensure accuracy. Therefore, I oppose the proposal to delete this article and believe it should be retained. Tanvir Rahat (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New sources added:
Eshomoy article has the same issues as the Online Bangla News article- using several peacocking terms like "The infinite heroism of the Border Guard Bangladesh" and contradiction the Mahbub Miah article by saying that "It is worth mentioning here that the Bangladesh Army did not participate in this war."

Justice.gov article does not mention any clash that occured in 2000.

Imran Choudhury article is a blog, and is not a reliable source as it is a WP:USERGENERATED source
Thank you for improving the article with more sources, but we now have three sources supporting that there was anything more than a minor skirmish- two that agree on key details and one that doesn't. These three then contradict three other sources, including reliable sources from 2001.

The question here is in part, WP:SIGCOV for an event that goes beyond routine coverage in reliable sources. However, my nominiaton is mostly about verifiability (deletion reason 7). Attempts to find reliable sources to verify the claims in the Alo and Eshomoy articles have failed. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all the sources and citations given in the Bengali Language Wikipedia which still states 600 killed and most of the citations were self-blog pages uploaded back in 2021-2022. For reference heres the bengali wikipedia নাফ যুদ্ধ. And self blog pages like [16], [17] . None of the official Bangladesh media like BBC Bangla or Prothom Alo states 600 Myanmar army were killed, instead it was just a clash. Also, it's not accurate to refer to it as a "war." It should be termed "Clashes in the Naf River". Next adding to that, I haven't been able to find any coverage of this war from Western media either. That said, I believe this article is unnecessary and I strongly request its deletion. Tuwintuwin (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, the commenter’s name and account appear to be new. However, it is a sockpuppet and blocked, so how are they still commenting?Wikipedia: Sockpuppet investigations/Tuwintuwin/Archive

@Yue & @PhilKnight, please check if there is any connection. Tanvir Rahat (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tuwintuwin was unblocked following a successful unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. The user who asked for its WP:REFUND did nothing significant so far. Cited with blogspots and no sign of authoritative sources are to be found. Garuda ^Talk! 21:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There might be issues with WP:NPOV but I can see a lot of WP:RS discussing this conflict, passes WP:GNG. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which RS discusses the conflict beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage? EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:45, 28 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!} 23:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Shahram

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR No significant independent coverage of subject or CAMW organization she is associated with. Found one write-up in a small alumni magazine from 2005 (http://media.wix.com/ugd/ba8d3a_69ce4f04eab549e8992314f78621c089.pdf). There are a few sentences in larger papers like Fox from 2011 (https://www.foxnews.com/us/jury-convicts-new-york-tv-executive-of-beheading-wife) but doubt it rises to level of notability since they are not specifically about subject. No significant coverage located for book or minor awards. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Law, Islam, Iran, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick check on newspapers.com and there appear to be several articles where the subject has WP:SIGCOV. These include Buffalo News stories in the article that are deadlinks but are available in archive. I’ll need a day or two to do a more thorough look. Note this article passed AFC. Nnev66 (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are at least three references with significant coverage in reliable sources (see below). These are all published in the Buffalo, New York area but that doesn't dissuade me from notability as the coverage is reliable and significant. It was difficult to evaluate this one because a number of the references were primary written by the subject and this wasn't indicated in the referencing (I fixed that). Again note that this article passed WP:AFC before it was published to the mainspace, a process which from my experience is a vigorous check of an article. Nnev66 (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Watson, Stephen (June 21, 2004). "Iranian professor airs concern, criticism for land of birth". The Buffalo News – via newspapers.com.
Lazzara, Grace A. (Winter 2005). "One Voice - Nadia Shahram fights for equality" (PDF). Hilbert Connections Magazine. Hilbert College. pp. 6–10.
Vogel, Charity (April 25, 2010). "Women in the shadows Attorney Nadia Shahram's novel tells the true stories of Iranian women exploited by 'temporary marriage'". The Buffalo News. Archived from the original on 2016-03-08.

Comment: Thank you for adding non-primary sources to the article and the overall improvements you have made to it. I don't think I can access source [1] but based on the title it sounds like potential sigcov. And [3] definitely is. However I am uncertain if [2] qualifies as an independent source, since the subject was an adjunct professor at Hilbert College from 2001-2007 and the magazine featuring her was published in 2005. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - another day, another article up for deleting that I have a potential conflict of interest, for which I must disclose. The subject and I have both volunteered for not one, but two organizations: NYSBA and the Women's Bar Association, the latter from which we have received awards. We also have a public LinkedIn connection in common, one of my (former) best friends from high school. For those reasons, I'm not !voting one way or another, other than to say that she's very accomplished. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fair enough regarding InsomniaOpossum's comment that the Hilbert College source is non-independent since she worked there. I found another review of her book in Publisher's Weekly (link via Proquest). I also added an Attorney of the Year recognition she received in 2018. Nnev66 (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It should be deleted because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Despite a few references, most of the coverage is either too minor or doesn't offer significant independent insights into Nadia Shahram's career. The sources listed, such as a 2005 alumni magazine and brief mentions in larger outlets like Fox News, are not enough to establish her as a notable figure. Even with some recent improvements and additional sources, the overall coverage is still limited and mostly self-promotional or not directly about her work, which doesn't rise to the level required for inclusion on Wikipedia. Taha Danesh (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This is a tough one. There are a lot of passing mentions, but ultimately I don't see enough secondary coverage for GNG, and I don't see enough of her opinions being cited to meet the spirit of NACADEMIC, and her novel has no independent coverage that I can see at all, so there isn't enough to meet NAUTHOR. Taken together there is enough marginal evidence of notability to put me on the fence, but the promotional intent and NOTCV violations push me toward "delete". Ultimately I don't see much that separates her from the average professor of law. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Country Demos (Bret Michaels album)

AfDs for this article:

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

AFD in 2008 resulted in a WP:SNOW redirect. Article has now been recreated as a refbombed coatrack for Bret Michaels biography. The EP is still non-notable; none of the sources demonstrate significant reliable source coverage. Restore redirect to Bret Michaels discography#Extended plays. Jfire (talk) 23:34, 26 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. Jfire (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - massive WP:BOMBARD/WP:REFBOMB situation. I'm not seeing what sources are actually supposed to be helping it pass the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Return this to being a Redirect. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primo Desiderio

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

No indication of importance. BEFORE reaveals no RS of substance. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete no sources and no indication of importance.~~ Anktjha (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC) sock Girth Summit _(blether) 12:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Far from my area, yet there seems to be some mentions (via Ebsco) that suggest Desiderio was a well-known skateboarder in the 1980s eg "Pro Skate Couple: Primo Desiderio ("Primo" slide, landing "Primo") and Diane Veerman". Eric Stricker. '84 Versus '04. TransWorld Skateboarding, Nov 2004, Vol. 22, Issue 11; "more like Primo Desiderio, whose routines were all about the music". Little, Monty. The Zen of Freestyle, 2. Concrete Wave. Winter 2015, Vol. 14 Issue 3, p74-79; "A few big names from the '80s showed up, including Primo Desiderio and Per Welinder": Souney, Jared. FLATLAND LIFEAFL ROUND FOUR .Ride BMX. Apr2001, Vol. 10 Issue 4, p134 and a couple of others. Far from significant coverage, but suggest that such coverage might exist if the right sources were searched. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From Google Books, [18] has 4 or 5 paragraphs on Primo Desiderio plus 3 pages of instructions as to how to do one of the tricks he invented. Several other book hits for ""Primo Desiderio" skateboard" but no preview available for them. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very difficult to find sources because his name means "first wish". Here he is on the BBC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGpBbk-jRrc Polygnotus (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hometown Anthem

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable band that has been repeatedly recreated. It was deleted in 2006, editor submitted through AfC and it was declined, so they went ahead and submitted into article space anyways. Also previously created by the same editor under a different title case with lower case for the second word. Hometown anthem

There are many coverage, but shallow in depth and in a passing just enough to verify factual claims. See below for history of attempt to repeatedly create this non-notable band.

under the title Hometown Anthem

It was declined by AfC reviewers on August 14, and October 5, 2022, so editor went ahead and submitted directly to article space in May 2023.

21:28, 14 May 2023 Hellshane Asylum talk contribs created page Hometown Anthem (Created a page for Hometown Anthem) Tag: Visual edit (thank)

05:10, 27 September 2006 Mailer diablo talk contribs deleted page Hometown Anthem (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hometown Anthem) (thank)

under the title Hometown anthem (lower case anthem)

22:06, 8 August 2022 Athaenara talk contribs deleted page Hometown anthem (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: more at User talk:Hellshane Asylum, User talk:Fullcollapse325) (thank)

21:41, 8 August 2022 Hellshane Asylum talk contribs created page Hometown anthem (New page for band) Tags: use of deprecated (unreliable) source Visual edit (thank)

08:08, 10 March 2006 Mike Rosoft talk contribs deleted page Hometown anthem (Band vanity) (thank)

Graywalls (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and New Jersey. Graywalls (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not helped by the article being a massive REFBOMB, it seems there is no real evidence of notability cited and I can't find anything further. They are featured on the album Punk The Clock, but this allmusic staff review does not even mention them or their song. This is a sigcov review, [19], but the byline is just "Tom" so potentially user generated or a blog at best. There is an accompanying WP article for the EP If We Could Dream, which suffers the exact same issues; if technically possible I'd recommend adding it into this nomination. ResonantDis_tortion 18:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jyoti Singh (judge)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jyoti Singh (judge)

Jyoti Singh (judge) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)} – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not a public figure - Indian judges are not public figures and are bound by code of values not to publicise themselves or to respond to publicity about them. Furthermore there is no SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE and has same rationale as deletion of Navin Chawla (judge) a contemporary equivalent level judge of same court. JudgeMistry (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable by virtue of her position. Inherently a public figure, despite whatever taboos against self-publicity may exist. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Judges and politicians are not inherently notable. WP:NPOL only gives presumptive notability because significant coverage usually exists for national and region-level politicians. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Anwatu

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

A non notable business man. The article fails WP:GNG and the sources are press releases mostly from unreliable news media. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 11:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Pet Products Association

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

Can't find any coverage that meets WP:NORG. Best I could find is some churnalism in trade magazines ([20], [21], [22]) and a lot of sources citing their surveys (this is one of the only publications that contains anything beyond a namedrop). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Business, and United States of America. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Chimezie Okolo

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

A non notable business man and politician. All the sources are either from unreliable sources, press releases or promotional piece likethis Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moremi Ojudu

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

Being a Senior Special Adviser does not make her notable. I tried to check online but couldn't find anything that makes her fit for an article on Wikipedia. Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NANYBOY, GNG and NPOL. Cassiopeia talk 23:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The office of the SA or SSA does not confer ipso facto notability. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 1382

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

Not notable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit that a flight that never took off and with all occupants surviving is of borderline notability under WP:EVENT. I guess the arguments for are:

A commercial airliner having to be evacuated because an engine caught fire is not normal
The FAA stated that they will investigate the incident, in essence a promise that there will be a follow up at some point, giving the event some duration

And the arguments against being, well, it's just an accident, and everyone got put on a different flight. By airplane accident standards, no harm, no foul.

I could go either way on this one. LilyTurtle (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete – Not convinced the event is notable as stand-alone article, even with decent media coverage. Article creation seems to be hasty as WP:BREAKING news. Was originally going to suggest a redirect to a list article (e.g. List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft#2025, List of accidents and incidents involving airliners by airline (P–Z)#U, List of accidents and incidents involving airliners in the United States#Texas etc.), however all incidents on these list either involved fatalities, injuries, or were otherwise more critical in nature. Would not oppose a redirect if so desired by consensus. Bgv. (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with "hasty". I saw the page redlinked under George Bush Intercontinental Airport and tried to fill it in from there. To be honest, looking at List of accidents and incidents involving airliners in the United States, it seems that there are incidents that don't involve "fatalities, injuries, or were otherwise more critical in nature" (e.g. runway overruns with no injuries or fatalities, debatable on criticality) in that list that are simply redirects to the airport's accidents and incidents section. Given further assessment, a redirect to "George Bush Intercontinental Airport#Accidents and incidents" seems to be appropriate. The FAA has listed the event as an aircraft accident/incident, so it could go on the lists mentioned. LilyTurtle (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since there was no hull loss or death, I'm not sure this is even notable. Was there anything unique about this incident? Most news outlets are calling this an engine issue. Limmidy (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable, routine accident. E_F⁵ 01:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to a page with other airline incidents. Natg 19 (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable routine accident seeing some extra breaking coverage due to recent events as the media tends to do.Esolo5002 (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Accident is under investigation, too soon to nominate for deletion. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 11:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every accident and incident is investigated, but I'm confused why you think that's a basis to keep. I don't think the results of the investigation will result in keeping the article when fires with no injuries are not terribly uncommon and we do not usually maintain articles on them. Reywas92^Talk 15:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep It's still under investigation but I don't think that it is such a major incident. And at the time there isn't much info about it. Thatairplaneguy (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fairly common occurrence. See Esolo5002's comment and FAA's Statements on Aviation Accidents and Incidents show that FAA investigation doesn't make this any more notable than other incidents. See Delta 2668, Delta 112, and United 2136 on the linked page for similar engine fires/issues that do not have their own pages and occurred in the past 6 months. Jrd64fan (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty obvious NOTNEWS violation (and the only reason this has been getting as much attention as it has is because of recent, much more notable incidents). Elli (talk | contribs) 18:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Basso

AfDs for this article:

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

Some references were identified in the last AfD here, but most of them are quotes or brief mentions. There is no book review. None of them cover Basso in-depth and bio fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Finance, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William G. Spears

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

Non-notable asset manager, lacks direct and in-depth coverage. Cited sources are mentions or primary sources (like SEC forms etc). Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Water Organics

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

Only cited in local news, closed 5 years later with no coverage since then. I think it is WP:ROUTINE PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chanel ready-to-wear collection

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

Oddly promotional, florid prose and WP:NOTCATALOG PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eelipe (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lake George (film)

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

Not to be confused with the 2024 film with the same name, this does not meet notability (WP:GNG or WP:NFILM). Due to the timing/editing here and at the related Hamid Castro and its AfD, seems like this could be promotional or undeclared COI. Whisperjanes (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, United States of America, and New York. Whisperjanes (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until release. And then see. -Mushy Yank. 19:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until notability can be established. There's just nothing out there that can establish how this film passes NFF or even really give off the impression that more coverage will come about after it releases later this week. It's entirely possible that it might, but it's also entirely possible that it won't. Indie films are particularly prone to getting overlooked by media outlets when it comes to coverage from independent, secondary reliable sources. I'll try and come back later this week and see if there are any reviews, but just based on current coverage I don't see where this passes NFILM. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the other film passes NFILM and doesn't currently have an article, so I'm going to create one for it. I'm going to give it a bit of a disambiguation (probably Lake George (2024 film)) but after this is closed I recommend moving that one to this title. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Now, I do want to suggest something: if by some chance this movie does pass NFILM upon release I would like to suggest redirecting this to the director's page. In my opinion the current sourcing fails NBIO. There are only two usable sources, one of which could be seen as a primary source (Thrillist article) and another that is at best only borderline usable as it's the NYP and listed in the health section (only articles in the entertainment section are seen as usable, however this one is a bio and not really health claims).

My expectation is this: if the film does gain coverage, it's likely going to be a handful of reviews (unless it becomes a surprising media darling). We could easily cover this in a couple of sentences on the director's page. Retaining the director's page would give us a way to include some of the info from the weaker sources and also a landing page for if/when he puts out other work. Through personal experiences I'll say that bio pages are more likely to be recreated than film pages, so keeping the bio page might also help prevent recreation attempts.

But that's all assuming that this will gain the necessary coverage once it releases. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So far nothing, but I did see the trailer pop up. FWIW, movie looks like fun. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until release, then notability can be decided. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. Article creator and another editor that made a small addition have been blocked for sockpuppetry, though the article is ineligible for speedy deletion G5. Wikishovel (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Not enough significant coverage to pass WP:NFILM yet. Better to wait till it's released and add multiple critical reviews to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed this as draftify. But then I realised that there's a draft of the same name at Draft:Lake George (film), so I will be pinging the participants who agreed for the current mainspace version to be draftified. Do you think the draft should be deleted and this mainspace version be moved to draft, or do you think this mainspace version be draftified and the current draft (Draft:Lake George (film)) be kept? @ReaderofthePack, Donaldd23, Mushy Yank, Wikishovel, and RangersRus:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think a merge of both drafts is the best solution. The draft should not be deleted; that would be unfair. -Mushy Yank. 17:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support a merge of the 2 drafts. The one still in draft is very promotional and full of stuff that should not be in the article (Official TikTok account as an example). But, if that can't be done, the article in mainspace should be moved to draft deleting the version currently there. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Draft:Lake George (film) and Draftify Draft:Lake George (film) -- the articlespace version is cited and non-promotional, whereas the draft is not well cited, is promotional, has been rejected a bunch of times, and hasn't been edited since Nov. 2024 (i.e. it's not active and may have been abandoned). The author of the Draft:Lake George (film) can re-add their content to the draftified Lake George (film) without too much work if they can cite it, and the new draft article can be accepted once there are 2-3 reliable secondary independent sources describing the film. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to point out that the author of Draft:Lake George (film) (User:Ulyssesgranted) and Lake George (film) (User:Issacvandyke) are the same person, and both accounts have been blocked for sockpuppetry. Meaning I assume they already added the content they wanted to the current article from the original draft; the original draft was first rejected, and then they made a new article in mainspace with a sockpuppet account. - Whisperjanes (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I recommend deleting the promotional draft. It's extremely promotional, to the point where salvaging it would require that we completely re-write it from scratch. There's no point in doing that when we could just move the live article to the draftspace and save some time on that side. There's nothing of value in the draft. What little sourcing is present is either already in the (currently) live article or it's not about the film. Everything else is unsourced and is very promotionally written. Because it's so promotional, we have no way of knowing if any of it has been puffed up and to what degree.

Now, as far as notability goes, this is absolutely a draftify at best. There's zero new coverage of the film that isn't either a trivial mention, primary, or put out by someone who is clearly involved with the film in some form or fashion. (Not shaming them for studio plants, it's how the business works, just using it to emphasize that there's no usable coverage.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Delete the promotional draft Draft:Lake George (film) and move Lake George (film) from namespace to draft. RangersRus (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European Ultramarathon Cup

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

Doesn't seem like a very notable event especially since it hasn't been held since 2019. Poorly sourced. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sport of athletics, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think that the fact that a competition hasn't been held recently isn't evidence for or against notability, we need to look at the sourcing available. Looking up the German name "Europacup der Ultramarathons" I found these from the Schwäbische Post : [23] [24] [25] This is also a good recap from Aachener Zeitung : [26] Given that the series started in 1992 before the digital era, I think there are more newspaper sources to be found here. --Habst (talk) 13:53, 31 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) 16:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Inserra

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and does not meet guidelines of WP:NGYMNAST, which appears to be the purported claim to fame. Citations are brief mentions at best with a search uncovering no significant coverage of subject. GauchoDude (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment, de-PRODed by Ingratis without addressing any of the issues raised. Adding for awareness. GauchoDude (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - PRODs are for uncontroversial deletions only. There is enough here to suggest the possibility of notability, and that deletion might not be uncontroversial, so more eyes on the article would be beneficial. See WP:PROD and WP:ATD. I have no other opinion on the article or the subject. Ingratis (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the edit summary. Adding for awareness. Ingratis (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this is uncontroversial as stated in the PROD summary. It squarely falls under WP:DEL-REASON as the subject doesn't meet notability guidelines. More than happy to go through the process with as many eyes as needed. While I haven't gone through this process as many times as others, usually when I encounter a WP:DEPROD there is some sort of evidence provided to counter the PROD which wasn't done here so it's outside what I've typically experienced. GauchoDude (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muyiwa Awoniyi

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

Non-notable business executive who fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Notability is not inherited. Sources are either iffy, are promo, or are lacking substantial coverage of the subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I agree with the nominator that some of the sources lack substantial coverage on the subject, although the Rolling Stone and Music Week references do mention him in slightly more detail. The page was also created on February 1, 2025, one day before it was nominated for deletion, so I would prefer if this article was given some additional time to develop before we proceed any further with deletion. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Almost all the sources are either interview or press releases. They can neither establish WP:GNG nor WP:SIGCOV. Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a manager of notable singer-songwriters including Tems who has just won a Grammy Award and Omah Lay among notable others. It is this manager that managed Tems from their early career to Grammy Award. This manager meets WP:NBASIC when all sources that discuss him are combined. Some of those sources are here[27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. The subject is mentioned multiple times in the sources above. Some of the articles are based on his social media posts suggesting that he is notable and the media keep watch of his social media activities and writing about it. Lacent Pak (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that these sources can further enhance the article, I encourage you to integrate them. However, I worry that the Pulse reference is too gossipy for Wikipedia as it hinges on a tweet that supposedly received some controversy. A few of the other sources you just provided, including the "Dating Rumor" article, are also unlikely to be of much help for similar reasons as the Pulse reference. As such, I would exercise caution to ensure that the content being added is encyclopedic in nature.Dobbyelf62 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KDK Softwares

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

See previous deletions. Unable to meet WP:ORGCRITE. This is a promotional article as well. B-Factor (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, India, and Rajasthan. B-Factor (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi B-Factor,
I’ve made several updates to the KDK Softwares article to address the concerns you raised regarding notability and promotional content.
1. Notability: I’ve added independent sources, which provide coverage of the company’s history, partnerships, and industry role, which I believe satisfies the notability criteria for organizations (WP:ORGCRITE).
2. Neutrality: I’ve reworded sections that previously may have sounded promotional.
3. Citations: I’ve ensured that every single sentence in the article is now backed by a citation, and the references are from independent, reliable sources.
I believe these changes address the concerns and ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards. Please review the updated version and let me know if there are any further issues that need to be addressed. ShaliniTaknet (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: correct title for article appears to be KDK Software, which was speedy deleted as spam in 2011. I can't find SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources to show how this meets WP:CORP, just passing mentions like this, interviews and paid placement like this, and social media. Sources cited are press releases and run-of-the-mill coverage verifying that the company exists, but now how it's notable. Wikishovel (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the input. I'm not sure why the page was created in 2011, since the notability of the company only increased only after 2017, hence the speedy deletion at the time is quite justified. For the latter points, I beg to differ since the sources cited are not just press releases or routine mentions. For example, The Hindu and Press Trust of India independently covered Intuit’s acquisition of KDK Softwares, which is a significant event in the industry. Empanelment by ICAI is another major highlight in the Indian taxation industry, especially after the launch of the new tax regime which posed significant complications and resistance among professionals. Coverage in BusinessLine and ThePrint also to some degree highlights not just the company's presence but its nationwide impact on tax professionals. S.Taknet (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe it should not be deleted. It is a notable company in the Indian market, especially in tax field. The article has citations from independent and well-known sources. Its acquisition by Intuit and affiliation with association like ICAI and AIFTP, also, supports its notability.Thecoolfactfinder (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC) — Thecoolfactfinder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For policy based input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article satisfies inclusion criteria under WP:ORGCRITE, as it demonstrates significant coverage (SIGCOV) in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. While some sources may provide routine coverage, there are multiple instances of non-trivial, independent reporting that establishes the subject's notability:
- WP:SIGEVENT: The acquisition by Intuit was covered by The Hindu (among others), which is a reliable, independent source. This is a significant event in the Indian software and taxation domain.
- WP:RECOG: Empanelment by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) and affiliations with All India Federation of Tax Practitioners (AIFTP) shows recognition by notable entities within the industry and impact on the Indian tax ecosystem.
- Independent Coverage: Publications such as ThePrint and BusinessLine provide contextual analysis of the company’s role in addressing post-GST compliance challenges, which is non-routine and shows KDK’s nationwide impact on tax professionals.

Substantial efforts have been made to ensure the article adheres to WP:NPOV and WP:V. Content that could be sounding promotional has been removed, and every statement is now supported by citations from independent, reliable sources.

Given these points, the article meets the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) as well as the subject-specific notability criteria for organizations (WP:ORGCRITE). S.Taknet (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: S.Taknet (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. AI-generated !votes would likely be discounted as they usually are not policy-based.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Elgie

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

Poorly sourced article that was created by a blocked user. From what I could find, there is very little information available on this person despite their admittedly impressive career working with various musicians. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and England. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A WP:BEFORE search for citations finds only social media and user-submitted content. Normally I'd suggest merging or redirecting to Hipgnosis as an alternative to deletion, but he's not mentioned in that article; this may indicate that he was either not a major partner in the firm or his activity with the firm was short lived. If significant coverage of his work for Hipgnosis can be found I will consider changing my !vote. It seems that he was a designer doing his job WP:MILL who does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1997 International Sports Racing Series Brno

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

Unable to uncover any WP:SIGCOV of this event. There are numerous results lists such as [34] [35] [36]. but nothing at all detailed. Could possibly redirect the term to 1997 International Sports Racing Series, although that article looks equally weak. C 679 16:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Czech Republic. C 679 16:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete - Ideally someone who can read Czech or German would do a search of newspaper or magazine archives in those languages (note that the majority of the listed competitors are Austrian), but attempting to look this up in English reveals so little information that I can't say I'm entirely confident of whether or not this event even actually took place. The earlier event of this series in Donington was far more noteworthy and I've definitely seen it receive coverage before, although I cannot remember exactly where and when. Regardless, this seems to be a largely amateur event contested primarily by hillclimbing cars despite being a circuit race, which is a somewhat odd combination that I would expect to have received some amount of coverage if it had actually taken place simply due to its novelty, however if that information does exist it's either not in English or not available online. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Elements of Java Style

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

Fails WP: GNG. This book has some passing mentions in university course syllabi and a handful of books and papers, but I struggled to find anything that would establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Computing. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Most of the references included in this article only mention The Elements of Java Style in passing. One of the references listed did not even mention The Elements of Java Style, so I removed this information. Another url was no longer functioning, so I archived it, although this alone is not enough to save the article. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are some sources I found about the subject:
1. Kowalsky, Michelle (September–October 2000). "The Elements of Java style (Book Review)". Science Books & Films. Vol. 36, no. 5. p. 203. ISSN 0098-342X. EBSCOhost 518399332.
2. Less significant coverage:
  1. Abdallah, Mohammad M. A.; Al-Rifaee, Mustafa M. (June 2017). "Java Standards: A Comparative Study" (PDF). International Journal of Computer Science and Software Engineering. 6 (6). ISSN 2409-4285. Retrieved 2025-02-03 – via ResearchGate.
    The article notes: "On the other hands, the AmbySoft standards are more specified and detailed. The AmbySoft standards have guidelines for variables and parameters, classes, methods and packages. Moreover, they listed some advices for Java code reusability and testing [12]. These standards then published in a book called “The Elements of Java Style” [13]. This book provides a set of rules for Java practitioners to follow. While illustrating these rules with parallel examples of correct and incorrect usage, the book provides a collection of standards, conventions, and guidelines for writing solid Java code which will be easy to understand, maintain, and enhance."
  2. Ouchi, Monica Soto (2004-05-09). "Amazon wizard: Corvallis man flies his own plane to commute to work running on-line seller's technology operations". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2025-02-03. Retrieved 2025-02-03 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "He co-wrote "The Elements of Java Style," a book that mimics the presentation of the Strunk and White classic for writers, "The Elements of Style." He and his cohorts were tired of thumbing through an obtuse, 1,200-page manual for answers about the Java programming language."
  3. Geelan, Jeremy (2003-11-01). "The state of Web services, A.D. 2003: they're 'a tool for the times,' say the experts. (Web Services Edge 2003 West Show Report)". Web Services Journal. Vol. 3, no. 11. Gale. ISSN 1535-6906. Factiva WSJL000020041124dzb10000e.
    The article notes: "The visionary in question was Allan Vermeulen, coauthor of the codehead's classic The Elements of Java Style, and now CTO of the world's largest online retailer, Amazon.com."
  4. Che, Haoyang (March 2005). "Review of "The Elements of C++ Style by Trevor Misfeldt, Gregory Bumgardner, and Andrew Gray"; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, ©2004, 0-521-89308-9". ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes. Vol. 30, no. 2. p. 29. doi:10.1145/1050849.1050869.
    The article notes: "Similarly, in the field of computer languages, there have many books (The Elements of Java Style, The Elements of C++ Style, The Elements of UML Style) furnishing a set of rules for writing in a certain language like C++ or Java."
I was able to find only one source that provides significant coverage about the book (Kowalsky 2000 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKowalsky2000 (help)). Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria requires significant coverage in two sources.
Cunard (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramam Raghavam

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

~~Not able to find two full length reviews in reliable sources and there are~~ not enough independent sources for GNG apart from routine coverage. Fails NFF/GNG. Draftify/ATDR - Dhanraj (actor). Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see enough coverage that GNG is met, especially since this is before release of the film. I'm willing to revisit in two to three months if the coverage completely dries up after release. —C.Fred (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you are seeing in the article is WP:CHURNALISM. Routine coverage of announcements, articles without bylines and interviews given as part of the film's promotion. If you actually thought that GNG was met here, then there would be no point in revisiting this article in two months. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nomination. Taabii (talk) 06:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify– Draftify this until the film is released and WP:NFILM criteria are met.EmilyR34 (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable cast, director and crew. Coverage about production. Release in 3 weeks...if really waiting until then is unbearable, redirect or draftifty but opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 01:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Maybe will meet WP:NFILM after the release with hopefully multiple reviews from reliable sources. Best to keep in draft and recommend the creator to refer to WP:ICTFSOURCES to add multiple reviews from reliable sources, if any are found, after the release, and then resubmit for AFC review. RangersRus (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify until release. Then, depending on coverage afterwards, move back to mainspace after. Procyon117 (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaf Trading Cards

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

Relies too much on Primary sources Villkomoses (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, American football, Baseball, Basketball, Football, Ice hockey, Tennis, Wrestling, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's not a valid deletion rationale. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass WP:NCORP, no independent sources discussing the company. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Piotr. Cbl62 (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has been one of the major sports card companies for awhile now. Here are some sources: [37][38][39][40][41] While these sources aren't strictly about Leaf, they do go into some detail about the company. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources presented by WikiOriginal-9 would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reiner Kümmel

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

A case of evidence versus opinion. Theoretical physicist who moved into econophysics, h-factor WOS 25, GS 26, no major awards. Physics work is solid but does not pass WP:NPROF#C1 -- nobody has argued it does. Originators argues that economics work is notable, despite lack of cites. As noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics, econophysics is not mainstream economics so is not well cited. Notability tag (not by nom) and PROD (by nom). Editors responded with arguments in talk pages of why he is notable in their opinion, and added WP:Opinion to text. Both notability tag & PROD were removed with the argument "passes WP:NPROF#C1 on cites". I believe we always require evidence. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Economics. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping of @Xxanthippe, Gunnar.Kaestle, Sniffadog, Moriwen, Ulubatli Hasan, and Closed Limelike Curves: Ldm1954 (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - here are my arguments why his work is notable:

The Solow Growth Model is notable.
Also the Solow residual is notable, indicating that the model is not complete. (Figure 6.4).
Finding a solution by identifying a third production factor energy as the missing link is notable as well.

Gunnar (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"After a detailed discussion of the scientific elements of energy and entropy, Kümmel comes to his main concern, the improvement of economic theory, and introduces energy as a new variable in economics on the basis of scientific results. The result is a model in which the economic production function depends on the factors capital, labor, energy and creativity. Kümmel tests the model using economic data from Germany, the USA and Japan. He concludes his book with the hope for a society that builds its future on reason and general ethical values. “The Second Law of Economics” is very convincing and it is to be hoped that it will help to bridge the deep rifts between the natural and social sciences." Book Review for The Second Law of Economics [42] Gunnar (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone who works on a notable model is notable themselves. Writing one book, even one notable book, is not enough to meet our notability standards for authors. XOR'easter (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ayres, Robert U.; Warr, Benjamin (2009). "Chapter 6 The production function approach". The Economic Growth Engine – How Energy and Work Drive Material Prosperity. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. p. 190. ISBN 978-1-84844-182-8. Retrieved 2025-01-16. Another approach (first demonstrated by Kümmel) is to choose the next-simplest non-trivial solution of the growth equation and integrability equations (Kümmel 1980; Kümmel et al. 1985). [..] Hence, such a model is not ideal for forecasting. What is interesting, however, is the resulting calculated time-dependent productivities, which show a significant increase in exergy productivity and a decline in labor productivity, over time.

At least he has priority in finding a pretty good solution to the known problem. If this was a patent, the early bird would be notable. Gunnar (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reiner Kümmel is one of the first scientists who introduced energy as factor of production analytically. Kümmel derived the LINEX production function that depends linearly on energy and exponentially on the ratios of capital, labor, and energy. The LINEX function is the first production function that explicitly models energy’s economic role of activating the capital stock. More specifically, it models the role of energy in increasing automation and in capacity utilization of industrial production. Kümmel derived the LINEX function in 1982, triggering a stream of research on energy as factor or production. Source of first publication: Kümmel, Reiner (1982). "The impact of energy on industrial growth". Energy. 7 (2). Elsevier: 189–203. doi:10.1016/0360-5442(82)90044-5. Retrieved 2025-01-20. Gunnar (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least 10 publications on GS with > 100 cites. Passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. All these papers are in ecological economics which is a high citation field, please see this link Ldm1954 (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xxanthippe, to expand on my citation conmment, in standard solid-state physics 10 papers cited more than 100 times is about what is expected for a good assistant professor coming up for tenure at a strong R1 university. This is different from, for instance, mathematics where citations are far lower, or HEP where they are far higher. A few papers with > 1000 cites is notable. His area of ecological economics is highly cited, from what I can see higher than solid-state physics. If we said that all Profs with > 10 papers cited > 100 times were notable, then almost every associate professor or higher at an R1 university in chemistry, materials science, physics, economics and a few more would pass R1. As has been discussed previously quite a few times at WT:NPROF, the concensus is that citations have to be considered in context for the field, not as absolute numbers.Ldm1954 (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although he did publish in Ecological Economics in 1989 (Energy as a factor of production and entropy as a pollution indicator in macroeconomic modelling [43]) and 1991 (Heat equivalents of noxious substances: a pollution indicator for environmental accounting [44]), I do not see this broad subject of sustainable economics as his home turf. It is more specialised: the macroeconomics effects in energy economics. Here, there are physicists and engineers that have updated their know-how in economics, and market people who took extra coaching in basic physics. While in the second half of the 18th century it took only a decade or so that the new subject of thermodynamics became generally accepted in the physical domain, I am still puzzled about that energy as a production factor is ignored by mainstream economics although we have seen dire effects on the economy during the oil price shocks in the 70s, the price explosion in 2008 which ended the Great Moderation and the energy shock after the COVID restart in 2021 and the effects of the Ukraine war in 2022. If the cost share theorem was true, the energy price shocks should have shown no significance. Reiner Kümmel provided arguments, that the assumptions of neoclassical economics are wrong in this case: How energy conversion drives economic growth far from the equilibrium of neoclassical economics (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/16/12/125008/pdf 2014). I assume this is a kind of agnotology, not in a sense that there is a malevolent lobby behind like in the case of Big Tobacco, but a kind of firm paradigma which is not easy to put aside. I only noticed once in an IMF-Report on Oil and the World Economy that the authors seemed worried. "For the contribution of oil to GDP, the main problem is that conventional production functions imply an equality of cost shares and output contributions of oil. This has led economists to conclude that, given its historically low cost share of around 3.5% for the U.S. economy, oil can never account for a massive output contraction, even with low elasticities of substitution between oil and other factors of production." (S. 14) And then they cite Kümmel, Ayres and some others to present counterarguments. --Gunnar (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Note that this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work."

"Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied."

"Thus, the absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used as proof of non-notability."

These caveats may be there to prevent identifying only cargo-cult science as notable. Thus, my suggestion is to have a closer look on the improved theory of economic growth with energy as third production factor. It is a tiny, focused subject but without doubt notable. "Growth theory, like much else in macroeconomics, was a product of the depression of the 1930s and of the war that finally ended it." Similarly, Kümmel's work started with the observations during the oil crises in the 70s. Gunnar (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hall, Charles; Lindenberger, Dietmar; Kümmel, Reiner; Kroeger, Timm; Eichhorn, Wolfgang (2001-08-01). "The Need to Reintegrate the Natural Sciences with Economics" (PDF). BioScience. 51 (8). Oxford University Press: 663–673. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0663:TNTRTN]2.0.CO;2. Retrieved 2025-01-21. I like this paper very much, not because of the mathematical explanation in the 2nd half, but because of the simple English and the Figures in the first half. Especially fig. 1a shows a basic model in economics: Goods and services flow in one direction (and are paid by households), while Land, Labor and Capital flow in the other direction (and are paid by firms). "This view represents, essentially, a perpetual motion machine" as all the goods and services (including capital borrowing and land lending) are circulated after processed or consumed and paid in a constantly spinning wheel. Therefore, figure 2 shows a more accurate model of how economies work. Everything is driven by an energy flow, while its quality is degraded (entropy is increasing). This is not my personal opinion only, but at least his 4 co-authors obviously agree to this interpretation: It is irresponsible to rely in our decision making on economic models, that contradict our reality. Reiner Kümmel has created a sound mathematical foundation by properly integrating energy into the macroeconomic theory. Gunnar (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to link to the article's talk page Talk:Reiner Kümmel#Notability of Academics as well as to the matching discussion at the Economics project Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics#Notability of Reiner Kümmel. Gunnar (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no wikipedia editor experience and I'm sure I'm breaking some rules here, but I found this article quite helpful in my research on how energy input and total factor productivity are related, particularly in regards to the energy crisis in 1973. I recommend that the article is kept. 165.91.13.227 (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – if for no other reason than that the "keep" comments are utterly unconvincing, despite clear attempts to make them so. Most comments above revolve around the notability of the subject matter that he worked on (which no-one has suggested is not notable), not this person, and aside from that the traceable citation count, which in the absence of any other evidence is pretty meaningless. Even the not-too-many citations of his papers suggest notability of the topic, not of the author. The content of the article gives little that would make him notable outside of one narrow topic. There are also knowledgable editors here expressing opposition to "keep" without putting it in a separate bullet. —Quondum 23:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you said, nobody questions the notability of the subject matter, then why is he as the first person who pointed out that there is a problem with the growth model's math and developed a solution which shows a good fitting with measured data not notable as well? Gunnar (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is about on par with asking "Why is the sky pink?". Relate any arguments to WP:N. In particular, GNG requires significant coverage of the topic of the article (i.e. the person, not of a field to which they contributed). Einstein's notability is established by what is written about him, not by our opinion of his contributions. —Quondum 12:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you want to say by "Why is the sky pink?". Regarding you example of Einstein, that's a bad one, as you don't want to keep only the most noble noble prize laureats and kick out those which have been forgotten. I argue about fact that notability cannot only shown by a citation count but by other means as well. For me it is obvious that improving a theory from economics which disregards some basic laws of physics (reduce the energy input in your country's economy by 90 % and the economy will not shrink by only 5 %, as any kind of transportation, production of goods and food, operation of computers, etc does need energy) is notable. I believe Jeremy Rifkin thinks so as well: "In other words, 'energy' is the missing factor." [45] Gunnar (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Kannauj

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

This article is a pseudo-historical POV fancruft forked from Varman dynasty (Kannauj) and synthesized with content from other articles. There was no kingdom of Kanauj, it was merely the capital that exchanged hands with multiple powers during the tripartite struggle. This article conflates the time when it was independent as the Varman dynasty and the period where it didn't even exist as a kingdom (Tripartite struggle) to push a fringe ahistorical POV. – Garuda ^Talk! 14:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Bihar, Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. – Garuda ^Talk! 14:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think you are wrong here. Kannauj was indeed an imperial kingdom atleast till 500 years from Maukhari dynasty of Kannauj to Gahadavala dynasty of Kannauj with several dynasties in between. How can you call it a fringe theory when a simple google book search can bring you mentions by many good scholars, historians about Kannauj being kingdom. See Imperial Gazetteer of India 1909 clearly calls Kingdom of Kannauj as most powerful kingdom in north India and Rival Hindu Kingdoms and sultan by Harbans Bhatia and many many other good sources too mention about it. Colonel Tod has defined boundaries of Kingdom of Kannauj as can be read here on Indian Antiquary 1874. It was also known as ""Kanyakubja-Bhukti"" which clearly means kingdom as it had different Mandalas like Kalanjara Mandal which is today's Bundelkhand. You can cross check HERE and search on google books. This page do not deserves to be deleted. Desi Katta (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kannauj was indeed an imperial kingdom for at least 500 years, from the Maukhari dynasty of Kannauj to the Gahadavala dynasty.^{[citation needed]} So far, I have found no source describing a 'Kingdom of Kannauj' that existed for more than 500 years. The sources you have provided are obsolete and fall under WP:RAJ, except for Bhatia, and they don't even discuss an entity that existed from 510 to 1036 CE. Instead, sources mostly refer to the Ayudha dynasty, Varman dynasty (Kannauj), and Pushyabhuti dynasty as distinct entities rather than grouping them under a single umbrella. Recent sources have nothing to say about such an entity. – Garuda ^Talk! 01:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will try to define my point in brief. One editor here said that this article attempts to mix Kingdom of Kannauj with dynasty ruling it which is a logical fallacy when we look at the contemporary mentions and importance of Kannauj(Kanyakubja) in Hindu literature. Maukhari dynasty , Pratihara dynasty, Varman dynasty (Kannauj), Gahadavala dynasty are all different dynasties but known as (Maukharis, Pratiharas, Varmans, Gahadavalas) of Kannauj even though they werent originally from Kannauj. The most probable reason can be Pauranic/Legendary mentions of Kingdom of Kanyakubja(Kannauj) as can be read HERE & HERE and its relation with illustrious Lunar dynasty of Vishvamitra as can be read HERE] , HERE2 and [Here3. Contemporary mentions like Huen Tsang, Utbi, al-Masudi and Al-Biruni and some Buddhist sources also strengthen the claim that it was called "Kingdom of Kanyakubja"(Kanauj) irrespective of the dynasty ruling See HERE page 140, HERE page 518 , HERE page 289 and HERE Page 330 where Utbi refers to King of Kannauj as head of all Indian kings . It can be noticed in given sources that although Harsha's dynasty was originally from Sthaneshwara, Tsang still mentions it as Kingdom of Kannauj under Harsha with boundaries of Kannauj kingdom stretching from eastern punjab to central gangetic plains as can be seen HERE page 118, 130] and above sources also tell how foreign travellers and historians identified/called all these dynasties/empires as Kingdom of Kannauj and kings of those dynasties as Kings of Kannauj. It is same like various dynasties like Isaurian dynasty and Nikephorian dynasty ruled at constantinople but most people still call them "Byzantine empire" collectively which is derived from greek settlement at Constantinople. I guess there can be improvement in time range of existence of "Historical" kingdom of Kannauj established by Maukharis but this article should not be deleted as it does mentions an entity which not only existed but also controlled political affairs of Northern India. There is a obviously a reason that the popular Tripartite Struggle occured for gaining control over the kingdom of Kannauj of Pauranic and legendary importance. When we say that "Kingdom of Kannauj" is just a fringe theory and is a Pseudo-History POV fancruft, we are ignoring the contemporary mentions of it by famous travellers. In my opinion discussion should be for improvement rather than deletion. Desi Katta (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination. Bad day for pseudohistory, the article portrays the Pratihara dynasty as the kingdom of Kannauj, with an apparently falsified map and timeline and then mixes up with a dynasty that existed centuries prior as being the same kingdom. NXcrypto Message 03:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Logical fallacy. By same analogy several dynasties like Isaurian dynasty and Nikephorian dynasty ruled the Byzantine empire but most of common people can't name these dynasties but know of Byzantine empire. Byzantine is derived from a greek settlement at Constantinople which means although dynasties ruling constantinople or Byzantium changed but still it was called Byzantine Empire. Desi Katta (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – Garuda ^Talk! 09:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "pseudo-historical POV fancruft" puts it well. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Desi Katta (talk) 22:26, 3 February 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 11:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Sea 1618

AfDs for this article:

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

This was nominated for deletion ten years ago and kept on the grounds that the AFD nomination was too soon, and by a new user. Promises to find sources were not delivered on. The article cites a scan of a newspaper from 1910 but doesn't say what the newspaper was, and "History of Companies in the Ottoman Era" by Muhammad Al-Sharari, a book I can't find a single Google result for. In Arabic the only result is this Wikipedia article.

The sources on the talk page don't seem to check out either, even of the ones I could track down, they're general information about Dead Sea products but don't actually mention this specific company. Searching for any information about this company today all I find is that it seems to no longer be active and it was probably created in 2015, the same year as the Wikipedia article, and was never as big as the Wikipedia article claims. There's very few mentions of this company at all outside of Wikipedia mirrors, and none in reliable sources that I can find. While this article exists on the Arabic Wikipedia, it is an auto-translation of this English article done in October 2024, with no prior mention of the company there, which doesn't instill confidence that it's a real historic company.

I know that sources are going to be hard to find here but it's been ten years and there's nothing, with signs pointing to this article actually being a part of the launch of a 2015 company that didn't make it. In Wikipedia policy terms the lack of sourcing shown to exist mean it doesn't meet WP:CORP. Here2rewrite (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and Jordan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:V. Indistinguishable from a hoax. Jfire (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To be fair, with respect to it being created in 2015, the account on that website is not verified, and just because they joined that platform in 2015 is not necessarily a good indicator they were created then, if that is them.

Looked at the sources on the talk page and went and found the archived/translated version:

1. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304103403/https://www.abjjad.com/book/2177600893/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%83%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%A9-%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7/2177830277/reviews

"Commercial Companies in Jordanian Law (A Comparative Study of Company Laws in Iraq - Lebanon - Saudi Arabia - Egypt)

Authored by Aziz Al-Akeili (Authored)

When we study this topic, we must address the importance of commercial companies and the distinction between civil companies and commercial companies and the forms of commercial companies, their historical development, and the rules governing them in Jordan. Finally, we determine the study plan for commercial companies. All of this has been covered in this book with explanation and clarification. Commercial companies are one of the most important phenomena of social life. They have existed in all ages since the beginning of civilization, then they grew and expanded with time and with the development of human needs according to the development of social and economic life. Thus, the book discussed the general provisions of companies and discussed the company of persons, money companies, and companies of a mixed nature."

2. https://web.archive.org/web/20160418133223/https://www.esc.jo/esc2013%20.pdf

Google translate can't seem to understand this one at all, so I can't tell if it's relevant

3. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304031231/https://www.arabicbookshop.net/main/similarbooks.asp?id=150-157

"Corporate Governance in Jordan║ Results of the 22 February Forum"

4. https://www-majdalawibooks-com.translate.goog/ar-ge/details.php?bid=252&_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=ar&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

"Dead Sea Diaries"

So basically #1 and #3 might have some information, #4 seems like a children's book? and #2 I can't translate with Google, so I don't know. I think it's true that we can't access any sources for this company but given we have these book titles and cannot access them I don't think we can confidently say that sources don't exist. I think the only real conclusion here is that we are unable to conclude either way whether there is reliable coverage of this, absent someone finding the books. So I'm not going to oppose deletion but I'm not going to vote for it either. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source 2 on the talk page is the 2013 economic report of the Economic and Social Council of Jordan which can be read at here. It doesn’t mention the company at all (I searched for بحر الميت and ١٦١٨. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve just done a fresh Arabic search and can find absolutely nothing by way of references to support this article. BTW a pattern I’ve seen before with inexperienced editors is that when their work is put up for speedy deletion they panic, do a google search and dump a bunch of links onto the talk page claiming “there are sources” but these are just random links in which the words بحر الميت happen to be mentioned and not sources about the company. Mccapra (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 05:52, 3 February 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.

2235

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

Only two entries, a year and a number, neither of which have specific entries at the relevant articles (3rd millennium and 2000 (number)). There was previously a redlink to an article deleted by PROD in 2011. Nothing else of note. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Mathematics, and Disambiguations. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I checked OEIS to see if we could potentially write an article about the number 2235. The closest I found to a usable property was this, which isn't enough. I'd be inclined towards deletion if nothing else turns up. XOR'easter (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 3rd millennium#23rd century, as for 2234 and 2236, and 2225 and 2245 (ie 1 and 10 more and less - seems to be established pattern). This was a valid dab page while Marantz 2235 existed, but not since it was deleted in 2011. PamD 08:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Medhat

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

Probable failure of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Soccerway lists him as playing two dozen games in Qatar's first league, though with a different date of birth. This is a bit too weak to assert notability in itself. When trying to find coverage, there is a flurry of coverage about the physical trainer of Zamalek SC, who died in 2024 and may or may not be the same person. I believe that this Qatari footballer would need some strong pieces of coverage to pass our notability bar. The creator of the page is of no help as he was a notorious sockpuppeteer and is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 12:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not much substance here to warrant an article. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bhutala

AfDs for this article:

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

Literally for all the reasons of the last delete.

Theres so much speculation (from the year it happened, to if there was even a battle...) on this page/little information that brings WP:GNG into account because there's very little coverage/accurate information on it. Noorullah (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The last AfD had limited participation and was based on an underdeveloped, poorly written article. However, that is not the case now. The nominator's rationale is unclear on how it fails SIGCOV and GNG when the sources have dedicated at least two pages to the event [46][47] (excluding background and aftermath). Garuda ^Talk! 12:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Garudam My view is from the significant coverage guideline;

""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." -- While the topic is covered (by the few books cited on the page), the speculation on whether a battle even happened, the years difference is alarming. I think there's just not enough information on the topic. Noorullah (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How are the two pages of coverage considered trivial mentions? Moreover, the speculation is not even about whether the battle occurred or not. All I see are speculations about the dates, which have already been addressed in a separate subsection. This should not be a reason for deletion. Garuda ^Talk! 17:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, I think a withdrawal of nomination is in order then. @Garudam Noorullah (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a better approach. Garuda ^Talk! 18:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I took a look at the sources for this battle. There are no significant sources for it and it does not seem notable enough to have been covered properly outside of Wikipedia. Of the sources given, only one really covers the "battle", but does not give it a name. The article goes beyond those sources and strays into original or at least uncited research. Given the lack of evidence the battle has received significant attention from independent sources, my view is it is not notable enough for Wikipedia and it should be deleted. FrightenedPenguin (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)— FrightenedPenguin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Take a quick look at this comment. Garuda ^Talk! 13:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manji (film)

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

This "article" is not about any specific film, but about 5 Japanese films that share same name. This isn't how we write articles here. I've tried to convert it to a dab page, but that was reverted. As it stands, this is just a random collection of words. Gonnym (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Sexuality and gender, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason this shouldn't be merged to Quicksand (Tanizaki novel)#Adaptations, at least until the independent notability of individual adaptations can be shown. It's not a random collection, since all of the films discussed here are based on the same work. Dekimasuよ! 09:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Quicksand (Tanizaki novel)#Adaptations. The dab page created was a dab page with only circular links back to itself. But merging this information to the novel page, and then turning this into a redirect would be the best option. Changing to Keep and convert this page to an article about the 1964 film.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The issue can be resolved through editing and does not need an AFd. The corresponding Jp article is a disamb (this can be one or even a WP:SETINDEX). The corresponding French/Italian/Korean articles are about the 1964 film, a notable film. No reason to delete. And no, the page is not a "random collection of words". -Mushy Yank. 13:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As a Yasuzō Masumura film, there is no reason for not having an article for the 1964 adaptation of the novel. Because it's a Japanese film released over 60 years ago (and a niche film), it isn't simple and easy to find sources about it, but there are some: the Japanese Film Database and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 8, 9, 10. Streamlined content about the versions that followed can be included under an "Other adaptations" section. Pyxis Solitary (yak). Ol' homo. ⚢ 13:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the sources given above, but just in general because there are several articles I’ve come across for films with multiple versions made over time, and that’s a perfectly fine and indeed helpful way to approach cases where that has happened, rather than writing 5 seperate articles with say “Film X(1940)”, “Film X(1953)”, Film X(1972)” etc as the titles, and treating each movie as entirely seperate, rather than using the article to point out differences between the versions based on a single story. Absurdum4242 (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duke City Shootout

AfDs for this article:

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

Unnotable movie-making contest. None of the sources cited in this article prove notability. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It got a huge amount of coverage in New Mexico, obviously. I tried to keep those sources to a minimum and looked for out of state sources. Offhand I'm finding a bit of a trickle of sourcing. The Hollywood Reporter source makes me think that there is possibly more out there, but not so much so that I'd argue for a keep based on that. I'm going to continue searching and see what I can find. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think 2010 was the last year it was held - they weren't able to hold it in 2009 due to financial difficulties, and I can't really see any mention of the contest being held past 2010. That trickle of sourcing is still coming in, but I'm still on the fence as to whether or not there's really any notability. There's a ton of local coverage, but I know there are some who won't consider that to be usable, which is a fair concern. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:01, 26 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!} 08:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JTA International Investment Holding

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. References cited are generally no more than press releases about investments. The article itself is just a WP:SOAPBOX. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Qatar. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reinforcing Notability with Specific Achievements

The article on JTA International Investment Holding highlights accomplishments that clearly satisfy WP:CORP. Examples include:

Awards and Recognitions: Dr. Amir Ali Salemi was named Entrepreneur of the Year for Asia in 2021 by Global Banking and Finance Review.

Philanthropy and Sustainability: JTA’s commitment to renewable energy and sustainability projects has been recognized by global organizations and media.

Official Reports: The company's investments in Pakistan’s energy and sports sectors have been cited in verifiable news sources, supporting its significance in these industries.

Additionally, the page has been updated to reflect independent news coverage, avoiding overreliance on press releases and internal announcements. 89.211.212.134 (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JTA International Investment Holding has received recognition from multiple independent and reliable sources, which substantiate its notability under WP:GNG. Examples include:

• Global Presence: The company operates across approximately 50 countries, focusing on equity investments, renewable energy, and infrastructure projects, as outlined on its official Wikipedia page.

• Independent Acknowledgment: Membership in the Al Attiyah Foundation, a leading body for energy and sustainable development, was reported in verified news channels.

• Media Coverage: The company's CEO, Dr. Amir Ali Salemi, has been featured in reputable outlets like Global Banking and Finance Review and received prestigious business awards, confirming third-party acknowledgment of JTA’s impact.

These examples demonstrate that the article is not merely a promotional piece but a record of verifiable achievements. Javaduiu— Note to closing admin: Javaduiu (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia page for JTA International Investment Holding is structured to provide factual and neutral information about the company, focusing on its:

Founding and Growth: Established in 2010, JTA has expanded to include seven subsidiary companies and a diverse portfolio of global projects.

Notable Partnerships: Collaborations with American Premier University and InvestQatar reflect its role in fostering international business relations.

Verified References: The page includes links to official announcements, third-party publications, and industry reports, ensuring alignment with WP:V and WP:RS. Munni075— Note to closing admin: Munni075 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. (talk) 10:49, 28 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!} 08:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage I can find is just the usual coverage for companies like these. Fails WP:NCORP. Procyon117 (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Mallorca

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. The article only cites one news source. Apart from that, the only sources I can find are from the DEA's own website. Aŭstriano (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Police. Aŭstriano (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are not looking everywhere that you can. The World Wide Web is not the whole world. There's a paragraph on this that is more detailed than this article, that can be used to expand it, at USDEA 2008, p. 180 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFUSDEA2008 (help); and also coverage in the entry at Kleiman & Hawdon 2011, p. 764 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKleimanHawdon2011 (help). At worst this is a merger to some larger article about USDEA anti-money-laundering operations, as at least one other source lumps it in with the likes of Money Trail Initiative, Operation Cali Exchange, and Operation Plata Sucia, showing that being part of a larger subject is how the world knows it. Uncle G (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Kleiman, Mark A. R.; Hawdon, James E., eds. (2011). "Tandy, Karen". Encyclopedia of Drug Policy. Vol. 1. SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781412976961.n336. ISBN 9781412976954.
- United States Drug Enforcement Administration (2008). Drug Enforcement Administration: A Tradition of Excellence, 1973-2008. United States Drug Enforcement Administration.
Delete: Fails WP:NEVENT since it lacks WP:SUSTAINED coverage. It made the rounds as part of the regular news cycle in June [48], and there's a tiny paragraph a few months earlier [49]. but not much else. If the only significant coverage afterwards is a paragraph in the USDEA's own publication, that's not enough for NEVENT. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Colombia and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Uncle G are you arguing to Keep this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Huttle

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

Does not pass WP:NCRIMINAL, his killing does not pass WP:NEVENT. Minor figure in a very large event and the killing does not make him more notable than the other ones. Not a lot here besides routine criminal proceedings. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of ribus

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

(no vote) list based on deleted nonnotabe term, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ribu --Altenmann >talk 08:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move ~~to List of ribus in Indonesia~~, to reflect its content. I didn't see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ribu but am not convinced that Ribu as a term is not notable - see 2009 coverage of the Indonesian list and Austrian coverage of the list as examples. PamD 10:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @PamD: Actually, both titles are misleading, because the page lists "ribus" and "specials"; see better move suggestion below. --Altenmann >talk 17:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New, sourced, section on ribus now created. PamD 12:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not change the fact that "ribu" remains personal endeavor of Quinn that belongs only to his webpage and should not be advertised in Wikipedia. We already established lack of notability of the term. Imagine my dad fisherman starts classifying fish by their color and publishes the catalog "Chromatography of fish". Heck, we already have real articles about real fringe scientists, and theirs opinions are not propagated in other wikipedia aricles. --Altenmann >talk 15:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  No, it's been covered more widely and there's now his book, and a forthcoming magazine article. PamD 18:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why ribus in Indonesia not mountains in Indonesia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the term wasn't notable at AfD then this isn't either.Golikom (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "List of mountains in Indonesia" as that appears to be the notable topic here... I can certainly find enough coverage of Indonesian mountains for this to be a stand-alone list but I can't find enough coverage of Indonesian "ribus" to get anywhere close. This would also match the other entries at Category:Lists of mountains of Asia, as it stands now this is a weird outlier. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "List of mountains in Indonesia" per Horse Eye's Back. Also because the title is misleading, because the page lists "ribus" and "specials" --Altenmann >talk 17:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a title which reflects "prominence", such as List of mountains of Indonesia by prominence. There will be many very high significant peaks in Indonesia which are not included in this list because you don't need to drop 1,000m between them and the next peak. See the titles in Category:Lists of mountains by prominence: many includes "ultras" in their title, and a "ribu" is the same kind of categorisation, just using 1,000m rather than the "ultra" cutoff of 1,500m. To call this List of mountains of Indonesia would be misleading. Either List of rebus of Indonesia or List of mountains of Indonesia by prominence. There seems to be no one list of Indonesian mountains. I have tweaked the lead of this list to clarify its scope, downplaying the little-known (as yet?) term rebus and clarifying prominence. PamD 18:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They can be included, we're discussing the core topic... Not what is literally on the page this second (that is nearly completely irrelevant in an AfD discussion) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your "they" is. To include all the mountains of Indonesia would be a very different list. This is a list of mountains in Indonesia with prominence >1000m, whether called "ribus" or not, with a selection of other noteworthy peaks (the "spezials"). PamD 19:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the content will be different, but thats where the notable topic is... It does currently appear to contain the large majority of notable mountains in Indonesia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The list is a list of mountains of Indonesia with 1000m prominence (plus a few), whether or not they are referred to as ribus. That is very different from a list of all Indonesian mountains above a certain height: this list is complete, but would be very incomplete if it was a "list of mountains of Indonesia". Wikipedia already has many ists of prominent mountains by place, and this is one of them, currently misnamed. PamD 21:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that this list is complete? It is almost entirely unsourced Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm WP:AGFing. There is a complete list of the 1000m prominence Indonesian mountains, plus the "specials", at https://www.gunungbagging.com/ribu-categories/all-the-ribus/ . PamD 23:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AGF does not apply to content, WP:V does. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bassam Kawas

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

Declined prod. Information was added that he competed in 1991 Summer Universiade but I don't believe that is enough to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I found several articles in Al Anwar covering Kawas including the fact that he was a cross country champion, not previously in the article. There's more at [50] under his Arabic name I'll have to comb through but I wanted to get this out first. The nominating statement says that SPORTCRIT isn't met, but it's actually fulfilled by the found coverage, which combined with WP:NATH (being a national champion) makes this a candidate to keep based on policy. --Habst (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which "found coverage" is significant? The source for his cross country championship says "Runner Bassam Kawas won the title", which is under no circumstances SIGCOV. It also doesn't say it's the "1992 Lebanese Cross Country Championships", it says "Lebanese Open Cross-Country Championship", and anyway winning a national title in athletics only suggests coverage if the subject has been ranked in the top 60 on the IAAF world leading list at the end of a given calendar year, which I don't see evidence for. JoelleJay (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, the newspaper coverage amounts to SIGCOV because it can be combined per WP:BASIC. Because "open" in the context of athletics just means "open to all age groups", and the newspaper article was discussing the 1992 race, it's accurate to say that Kawas won the 1992 Lebanese XC championships, I worded it that way to match that of the other articles in Category:National cross country running competitions. Kawas ranked 53rd in the 800m at the '92 Olympics administered by the IAAF, but the subject specific notability guidelines are irrelevant if GNG is met anyways.

Because you know Arabic, can you post your interpretations of the other Al Anwar matches here or look for others, because the archive.org Arabic scans don't always get the flow of text correct? --Habst (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maher Abbas

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

Declined prod. Information was added that he is a surgeon but I don't believe it is enough to meet WP:BIO. Also fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Medicine, Olympics, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, I was able to confirm that Maher Abbas the Olympian and Maher A. Abbas the acclaimed Stanford cardiologist are the same person and added to the IP editor's claim with that. Abbas' work and books have been cited in at least 36 different articles on newspapers.com, some going into detail about his life, see for example "Olive oil full of healthy fats". Iowa City Press-Citizen. 16 Aug 2000. p. 21. Retrieved 2 February 2025. and "Tuscan oil cream of the crop but don't disregard the others Continued from page C1". The Toronto Star. 20 Oct 1993. p. 42. Retrieved 2 February 2025.. The assertion in nominator statement that Abbas doesn't meet SPORTCRIT isn't true because of the provided cite, and GNG is met making the subject-specific notability guidelines moot anyways. --Habst (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the links in the article describe him as a "colorectal and gastrointestinal surgeon" with zero mention of being a cardiologist in his experience listing. Is that the same person as the Stanford cardiologist you refer to? Cardiology is a completely different speciality. LibStar (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this source about Tuscan oil I would not regard as WP:SIGCOV, it's a few lines mentioning Abbas in a larger article and quoting him rather than coverage about him. LibStar (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No you have not "confirmed" that the colorectal surgeon and cardiologist are the same person! None of the sources suggest this. The Scopus profile of the surgeon makes no mention of any cardiology work (which would be unheard of for a colorectal surgeon...), and the Anavara page says he only got his MD at Stanford and did his residency and practiced elsewhere, so would never be called a "Stanford" anything. The 1993 article would put him as a practicing cardiologist at 27 years old, which would mean completing medical school at 21 at the latest, all in the midst of training and competing as an Olympic athlete. JoelleJay (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JoelleJay. I think the strong keep is looking weak, by providing sources for a completely different person. LibStar (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar @JoelleJay, just to be clear, you think that there are two different "Maher Abbas" who are both Lebanese, studied at Stanford University at around the same time, and happen to work in the medical field? Because we know that at least one Maher Abbas who did all of those things is the Olympic athlete and article subject.

In the 1980s, most Olympic athletes were still amateurs who didn't train full time, so yes, it's entirely plausible he was a medical student while competing. --Habst (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously he is not both a colorectal surgeon and a cardiologist! JoelleJay (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the 2 sources that confirm he is a colorectal surgeon and not a cardiologist appear to be primary or a database. I don't think he meets notability based on his medical career. LibStar (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar, here's another article that talks about him going to medical school and nonetheless covers his athletic career enough to meet SIGCOV:

"Student to Participate In Olympics For Lebanon". The Atlanta Journal. 8 Sep 1988. p. 140. Retrieved 3 February 2025. "Abbas From Page 8". The Atlanta Journal. 8 Sep 1988. p. 143. Retrieved 3 February 2025.

Given that SIGCOV is met based solely on the athletic achievements, it seems like the identity issue, which again I think it would be highly unlikely that there are two Lebanese "Maher Abbas" in the medical field that studied at Stanford at the same time, would be a content dispute that can be resolved on the talk page unrelated to the deletion discussion. --Habst (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't his current profile not list any cardiology in his experience? I strongly contest this Maher Abbas is both the same cardiologist and colorectal surgeon. There is insufficient evidence to say they are the same person. LibStar (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He was a college senior in 1988. The idea that he became a practicing cardiologist by 1993 is laughable. JoelleJay (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dvorak (game)

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

Unable to find sources that demonstrate notability. The best I could find are an assignment for a university course and a self-published zine, although it is possible that there are some offline sources I'm missing. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Games, and United Kingdom. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CompoSecure

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

There is zero independent coverage of this company in reliable sources. A WP:BEFORE search returns numerous press releases about funding, stock market valuations, stock forecast, investment announcements, etc. The two articles from The Wall Street Journal are paid placements by Olmstead Williams Communications, which fails the WP:SIRS check. We are left with no independent sources with significant coverage of the company itself. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Business, Companies, and United States of America. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I also don't find anything this company has done that can be considered WP:NOTEWORTHY, so there's next to nothing to write about if the article was kept. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 15:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. I only found walls upon walls of press releases. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) ^talk/edits 16:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Barnt Toust 16:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per norm. Three independent articles by reliable sources. Mistletoe-alert (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just press releases, and regular stuff that isn't notable. Procyon117 (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Behappyyar (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Chauhan

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Taabii (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Delhi. Taabii (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For now; recreate if they eventually win their election as a lawmaker. Councillors of local government areas are not inherently notable per WP:NPOL#1. The sources therein are not substantial to meet WP:NPOL#2. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As of now fails WP:NPOL. Will get notability if he wins the assembly election 2025. TheSlumPanda (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's arguable this is a procedural/speedy keep in that the nomination lacks grounds for deletion WP:CSK. NPOL is criteria for inclusion, not exclusion. Not satisfying NPOL does not automatically make a subject not notable. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep On further thought, given above and given the proximity of the election results being announced (five days) - no decision should be made regarding the article until after the results are announced so as not to have any effect on the election or the candidate in any way. If anything, this reinforces the need for a speedy keep, with no prejudice to renominate if not elected. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Demolition Records

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

Clearly fails WP:NCORP. Previously PROD'd which was valid. Should not have been restored. Graywalls (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, Europe, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adedayo Olawuyi

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

The sources fail Wikipedia notability guidelines and a WP:BEFORE did not show that the subject is notable. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Nigeria, and Uganda. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A CCO or COO of a company can be notable, but they are not automatically considered notable without significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is significant media coverage of Adedayo Olawuyi - the article should be expanded more rather than deleted. If you look at the other managers of the same company (including some junior to him and arguably less notable) there is a good precedent and template set to build the articles to properly capture the notability. SM105 (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now expanded the article somewhat and added a number of additional independant secondary sources. I think the article now more than adequately satisfies notability requirements. SM105 (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow consideration of improvements made in the last week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: AirSpace Africa appears to be the only item directly about this person in a RS. Sources 7 and 8 are non-RS per Source Highlighter. I can't find anything extra we can use that talk about the person, mostly they are about the airline. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Three of the five new sources are unreliable: bellanaija.com, businessfocus.co.ug, and traveltrendstoday.in (Indian media used to be good, but not anymore). I'm going assume good faith that the other two are reliable, leaving the article still borderline. Bearian (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while we look for more references. He has done a lot for this airline. SiniyaEdita (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC) Incidentally who decides if a source is unreliable? Is it a personal opinion? SiniyaEdita (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is an established consensus about such sources: WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. Gheus (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gheus, what exactly is the established consensus on NEWSORGNIGERIA? Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or redirect to Uganda Airlines as WP:ATD. After removing WP:NEWSORGINDIA and WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA type of sources, there is not much left. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, it is better to cover such information on Uganda Airlines' article because keeping it standalone would violate WP:BLP with such low-quality references. Gheus (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 06:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Rojek

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

Fails WP:NMG, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Appears to be mostly a resume and self-promotional (WP:PROMO). No significant coverage in third party, independently published sources. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 06:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glane23,

Nothing in there seems to be self-promotional and all are verifiable facts (awards, compositions, album releases etc.)

I do not understand why you are suggesting the article to be considered for deletion, when it does exactly what any other artist page does on Wikipedia (lists accomplishments on their resume).

best,

Itzek Itzek1952— Note to closing admin: Itzek1952 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 600

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

Is every UN resolution inherently notable? This article has only one source, and perhaps it and other articles on UNSC resolutions that could easily be summarized should be redirected to a parent article. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In general, I would say that all UNSC resolutions are per se notable, but it is not completely unreasonable to ask the question from time to time regarding specific ones (although notwithstanding some WP:BEFORE, please, and bearing in mind that the state of an article does not bear upon notability WP:NEXIST). In this specific circumstance, at the time Nauru was not a member of the UN, which meant it could not access the ICJ without special procedure under advisement of the UNSC to the UNGA. Without this resolution, recommending the conditions the the general assembly should adopt in inviting Nauru to become a state party to the ICJ, Nauru would not ulimately have been able to bring its case against Australia two years later regarding the impact of phosphate mining; Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru. So there is a certain degree of exceptionalism to this particular resolution (as there is in fact usually with all of them). Further background on the resolution here: [51]. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Environment, Oceania, and Australia. Goldsztajn (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Nauru or suitable target.
@Goldsztajn makes essentially an WP:ITSIMPORTANT argument which can be summarized as being that the resolution led to the accession to the ICJ, which led to the Phosphate case. Which is appealing, except that there seems to be nobody drawing the connection between the UNSC's actions in 1987 and the filing of the suit a few years later. Meaning, for example, a search for (phosphate and nauru and "international court of justice") gets many hits but adding "resolution 600" gets no hits.
If further sources can be found, happy to reconsider but at this point this article seems likely to contribute about a sentence or two to the Nauru article which is about as much as it demonstrably deserves. Oblivy (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Floyd protests in Wyoming

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

May not be notable, only cited in a few local news articles over a few days in 2020, no coverage since. Maybe a merge to "List of George Floyd protests in the United States" would be a better home for this content. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Wyoming. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There appears to be a list of George Floyd protests for every state in the USA: Category:George Floyd protests in the United States by state or territory. I agree a lot of these protests aren't notable enough for mention (WP:NOTNEWS), but the most notable ones from all states could be bundled into one, as per the nominator? Ajf773 (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep per GNG. Article needs to be expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Another Believer. All fifty states' George Floyd protests articles are worthy of expansion; if you don't agree, just look at this map. Songwaters (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above. Well cited, and could easily be expanded based on the abundant published, secondary sources. Yuchitown (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - all "...in state" articles, into the List of George Floyd protests in the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. That would make the article WAY too long. Songwaters (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator - maybe this and the handful of other place-specific articles that are essentially a list of "X people marched in Y city on June Z" could be merged into the "...in the United States" article (like Vermont, Maine, North Dakota, etc.), but not ones with more substantive and unique content (like for Chicago). I just think that we don't need multiple articles that are list of local news events that have no hope of growing into anything in the future, when they could easily be summarized into a main article. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. Also outside the scope of this discussion. Yuchitown (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above. It's well done, and the consequences should never be forgotten. The long-term impact of this incident is similar to the lynching of Emmett Till. Different circumstances, different cause of death. But the overall impact is there. — Maile (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Up to "about 500 people" were in the most popular protest. Hundreds of people walking down a street with nothing else happening isn't enough for its own article. Anything notable should be listed in George Floyd protests. Dream Focus 06:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Barber

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

A well-written and WP:GF entry, however, I believe it may fail WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON.

BLP1E: Subject is known only for his appearance on NewsNation in which he claimed he was in psychic contact with space aliens or something.
GNG: Most sources are either NewsNation or rely exclusively on NewsNation reporting. NewsNation has been determined by the community as consensus unreliable as a source for UFO/UAP coverage per WP:UFONATION.

Chetsford (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The individual in his own right fails to fulfill WP:N. Eelipe (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Dude

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

Doubtful claim to notability: mentioned in a handful of local news articles in 2016, has seen no coverage in last 8 years. Not a single other article links here (this itself doesn't make it not notable, but suggests it has no enduring significance). PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Oregon. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Advertising, Travel and tourism, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, essentially. It's true this isn't about an event so of course it doesn't directly apply, but this only received a flurry of hyper-local news coverage and is routine. SportingFlyer T·C 06:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Short-lived mascot used in one place, no indication of lasting impact. If there is anything more to this since then, perhaps a sentence or two at Tourism in Portland, Oregon may be appropriate since that mentions Travel Portland. Reywas92^Talk 06:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as author: I've merged the content to Travel Portland. No need for AfD. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article as well as the Travel Portland article that was just created bye the author to move this content into. Agree with Reywas92 that this is perhaps a sentence or two at the most at Tourism in Portland, Oregon. No indication of lasting impact, significance, or sustained coverage. Asparagusstar (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am already expanding Travel Portland and there are more campaigns to add. I don't understand the rush to delete here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting an 8 year old article is not a "rush." Asparagusstar (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant re: your preference to delete Travel Portland, which IMO is a clearly notable topic. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all can figure out that in your opinion these articles you've created should be kept. You do not need to make three comments to explain this. Based on your previous two responses, I am going to suggest to you that any further responses to me beyond the two you have already made are unlikely to change my opinion that this should be deleted. Asparagusstar (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Shouldn't AfD discussions unfold naturally to assess the community's voice and decisions? The article has now been turned into a redirect in the middle of the AfD process and the content redirected into a a new article, "Travel Portland" containing the exact same content. This seems irregular, and for as long as I've been participating in deletion discussions, I've never seen this type of procedure occur before. Is it standard best practice? Just curious, no comment on the notability of the subject at this time. Netherzone (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as it says at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, "You should not turn the article into a redirect." and "Participants in deletion discussions should not circumvent consensus by merging or copying material to another page unilaterally before the debate closes." Asparagusstar (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to save the community time and energy discussing the necessity of a standalone entry when I was fine with the content living at the more general Travel Portland article and I am the primary author of both entries. By all means, feel free to restore a previous version of Mr. Dude, makes no difference to me. If editors agree the topic is notable, great! If not, then a redirect to Travel Portland would make sense anyway since Mr. Dude would almost certainly be mentioned there. Seems like a waste of time to me, but if we must follow a procedure, go for it! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer, it probably is best for you to undo your own redirect. The guideline does state You should not turn the article into a redirect during an AfD discussion. If the article title changes during an active AfD discussion, it can be really quite confusing to the XFDcloser. It is also confusing to other editors who come here to participate, it certainly was for me. Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! Done Then, my vote as article creator is merge / redirect to Travel Portland. I've already copied over, re-arranged, and expanded text about Mr. Dude there, along with other information about the organization and its campaigns. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure Travel Portland, which was just created, passes WP:NCORP and probably needs to be deleted as well. SportingFlyer T·C 01:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Gemayel

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did find being a Sheikh and an Olympian a bit unusual, which was why I thought it might be good to have a discussion on it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As this article has been PROD'd, Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No relevant notability criteria (WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:SPORTBASIC, WP:NOLY) are met by the sources in the article. I can't access the entirety of Revue du Liban et de l'Orient arabe page 86, but the coverage in the snippet I can access is insignificant, and it would only be one source. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 20:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George de Meo

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

Tagged for notability and sourcing since 2017. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
del no evidence of notability. --Altenmann >talk 04:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ quite a bit of coverage here [52] [53] [54] [55], for his weapons dealing was "the single most important source of weapons" of The Troubles, quite the claim to notability as evidenced by sigcov. That is without looking into newsy/other book sources (if you are unsatisfied by the sources I have provided or want me to incorporate them into the article, please ping me I will attempt to find more). PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also several pages of coverage in A Secret History of the IRA (though that might be moreso on Harrison). PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PARAKANYAA Thank you for finding these. Anything you are willing to do to improve the article is much appreciated.4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Changing vote since, while notable, everything he is notable for is summed up at Provisional Irish Republican Army arms importation. ATM I do not see the content for a split, and since his notability is tied up in so many other people I think this is best for now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of building consensus, I am ok with a redirect to Provisional Irish Republican Army arms importation per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 18 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!} 04:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist - Can we reach consensus on redirecting to Provisional Irish Republican Army arms importation?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 03:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think this needed another relist. As the nominator, I supported the redirect. That's two of three commenters supporting the redirect, and one editor remaining supporting deletion. This could have easily closed as a redirect under WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Farhad Azizii

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

Fails notability, it was once deleted here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farhad Azizi (athlete). now recreated again under a slightly different name to trick wikipedia. I'm going to repeat what I wrote before. most refs are fake and searching his name in English gives you almost nothing. Sports2021 (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moeed Pirzada

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)

WP:BLP1E. He was one of the journalists who were targeted by the Pakistani government in 2023 under some controversial charges. Most of the sources that discuss those arrests don't talk about Pirzada in any significant depth, which is why most of his career is sourced to primary sources in this article. Since this article has been repeatedly created by sock/meatpuppets, I would recommend salting it as well. Badbluebus (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Television, and Pakistan. Badbluebus (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pirzada appears to be a notable TV host, and his legal troubles go beyond WP:BLP1E. He was arrested in 2015; news coverage of that arrest described him as a "renowned TV anchorperson". A former Indian Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju called him an "eminent Pakistani journalist" while responding to a speech of Pirzada's. His departure from Pakistan seems to have been widely covered. [56] [57] [58]. There are a number of other news stories on Google News about him. And these are just the English language results -- no doubt there is more coverage in Urdu. Jfire (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
exactly 101.53.234.144 (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not just the Pakistani government, but also the Pakistani military establishment has targeted him. He remains a prominent journalist in Pakistan, with millions of people relying on his political analytical abilities to foresee what is likely to happen in the near future in Pakistan as well as around the globe. This is evident from his YouTube channel, which garners significant viewership from various countries, not just Pakistan. His page may require some, or even a lot of, improvements, but these improvements can only happen if the page is allowed to exist and remain open for public contributions. Deleting his page would be unfair. Aqsa Qambrani (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)— Aqsa Qambrani (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Not just the Pakistani government, but also the Pakistani military establishment has targeted him. He remains a prominent journalist in Pakistan, with millions of people relying on his political analytical abilities to foresee what is likely to happen in the near future in Pakistan as well as around the globe. This is evident from his YouTube channel, which garners significant viewership from various countries, not just Pakistan. His page may require some, or even a lot of, improvements, but these improvements can only happen if the page is allowed to exist and remain open for public contributions. Deleting his page would be unfair Aqsa Qambrani (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)— Duplicate !vote: Aqsa Qambrani (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

thank you so much Isaqibrana (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Moeed Pirzada is a prominent politics investigative journalist from Pakistan and has been in the media industry as senior anchor & columnist for over 16 years. He already had wikipedia page for years on wikipedia but recently the page was deleted after years being on wikipedia, deleted specially after he became a victim of Pakistan Regime 2022 with several other Pakistani journalists. The previous wikipedia page deletion shows how current administration does not want him to be a public figure, I believe even the previous deletion of his page was against freedom of information. He is being targeted by current administration in Pakistan. After being banned from entering Pakistan and banned on mainstream media, he choose to spread his voice using social media and currently have over 3 million people follow him with over 30 million active views. He also conducted interview with former British Prime Minister. QuantumThread (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)— QuantumThread (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete and salt. There are shenanigans going on with this page (see the creator of Draft:Moeed Pirzada removing the G4 deletion template and copy-paste-moving the draft page's content into this page simultaneously). But even without the shenanigans, this subject does not clear WP:GNG or WP:NBIO for a standalone page. Almost all of these sources are to Pirzada's own writings or to other non-independent sources. The couple of sources that are both independent and reliable are not WP:SIGCOV of Pirzada. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
millions of people are relying on his political analytical abilities to foresee what is likely to happen in the near future in Pakistan as well as around the globe Isaqibrana (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Pirzada qualifies to be on Wikipedia and definitely meets the criteria for WP:GNG or WP:NBIO.He is a credible and well-informed journalist in Pakistan. While I acknowledge that there is room for improvement, this can be achieved by allowing open contributions and ensuring that citations come from independent sources rather than his own blog. for your reference please have a look https://www.economy.pk/top-10-news-anchor-in-pakistan/. Pirzada is one of the top journalists of Pakistan. Aqsa Qambrani (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Pirzada qualifies to be on Wikipedia and definitely meets the criteria for WP:GNG or WP:NBIO.He is a credible and well-informed journalist in Pakistan. While I acknowledge that there is room for improvement, this can be achieved by allowing open contributions and ensuring that citations come from independent sources rather than his own blog. for your reference please have a look https://www.economy.pk/top-10-news-anchor-in-pakistan/. Pirzada is one of the top journalists of Pakistan 101.53.234.144 (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC) — 101.53.234.144 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Mr Moeed Pirzada is very well known and respected world renowned Political Analyst, Journalist,TV anchor / Host, and an author. His name should not be deleted from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neunad (talk • contribs) 05:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC) — Neunad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: as per Jfire (talk). He's done much better explanation above. Behappyyar (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per Dclemens1971. Nothing has changed since previous AfD. They have also published a lot of spam via globalvillagespace.com on Wikipedia. Too much waste of volunteers time. Gheus (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have very divided opinion here right now and much of it is just opinion. Can we get a source review?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of gulfs

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

Is this article defining a gulf (as distinguished from a sea) by actual features or by its standard geographical name in the English-speaking world?? Georgia guy (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I have made no attempt to determine if this meets WP:NLIST, deletion is not cleanup. It could be properly sourced and possibly merged into Gulf, which is a stub. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Gulf is absurdly short, the list should be there rather than a separate page. Whether only those titled gulf are listed or there's some flexibility of inclusion of bays or whatnot, I see no basis for deletion. Reywas92^Talk 06:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The edit history and deletion log reveal that this used to be our gulf (geography) article, although there was some history swapping going on in 2010 that confuses matters. Uncle G (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason given to delete. This is clearly a valid navigational and information list article. Dream Focus 21:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Scouts

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

Highly confusing. It's not a disambiguation page (there's already Boy Scout (disambiguation), with a 10-year old discussion about merging the two, Talk:Boy_Scouts#Merge_of_Boy_Scouts_(disambiguation)). It seems a set-index article, as it's just a list. Boy scouts redirects here but Boy scout doesn't. fgnievinski (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scouting-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for now. This information could be moved elsewhere, but I am unclear where, but until that is done it should be kept. Bduke (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't see the need for both of these dab/set pages. Reywas92^Talk 06:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Mars (character)

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

WP:GNG seems very weak. Reception is limited to few listicles and short commentary on the performance of the actor portraying her (that could be merged to Kristen Bell). WP:ATD-R suggests we can redirect this to the TV show instead of hard deletion if we agree she is not notable. My BEFORE does not show anything useful to save this with. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, and Television. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The GNG has been adequately met for over a decade, the nominator's opinion notwithstanding. Yes, coverage of the actress playing her, in the context of playing her, counts. Bell liked the character sufficiently well she came back twice after the three season run had ended, and was a key part of the movie promotion. Sure, there's a bit of extra plot summary here, but merger to the show is not the correct target as List of Veronica Mars characters exists, something the nom should normally have picked up on in preparation for this nomination. Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Gump (character)

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

This is a pure plot summary, mostly unreferenced, with an OR section on "differences from the novel" (presumably referring to the film version...). Only relation to the real world is the brief information about the actor who portrayed him (and won Oscar for that). My BEFORE doesn't show much - there may be some SIGCOV in Indonesian undergraduate (see id:Skripsi) student papers that GScholar throws at me, but per WP:THESIS and common practice (in my experience), we generally are ok with PhD level thesis, consider master-level stuff borderline, and don't see undergraduate papers are either particularly notable or sufficient to establish notability. Then there's a conference paper that does not want to open for me [59] and possibly some Japanese(?) paper [60] that's not online? In the end, my conclusion is that this might be notable, but the current execution is WP:ALLPLOT and needs WP:TNT (or at least, split summary should be greatly reduced, and scholarly analysis and reception which do not exist would need to be written, and I do not see sources to do it myself or tell others they could use them, unfortunately, per my analysis of GScholar results above. GBooks gave me nothing, and Google gives stuff that does not appear to be reliable and seem to be more like movie summaries for lazy students...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Forrest Gump. Zero WP:SIGCOV. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Toys 3D

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

Rationale: Non-notable per WP:GNG for a shareware re-release of a game that lacks an article. I think it seems to be shareware that does pop up in odd sources and cover discs, but lacks substantial coverage and review content to justify an article about it.

Source analysis: Relies mostly on primary sources [61], user-generated blogs [62] or game databases [63][64][65]. A PC Gamer article ([66]) seems promising, but the content reveals the writer has not played the game, relying on the site's description to describe it, and is expressing bemusement at the archaic method of distribution of its rerelease. Best coverage seems to be in a Czech magazine website of unknown reliability [67].

Other searches: Trivial mention on Games Industry as part of a publisher background [68]. Internet Archive search found one catalogue listing describing the game ([69]) and one Russian review ([70]) although the latter doesn't really describe or express much of an opinion of the game other than calling it a funny parody of Wolfenstein. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a merge/redirect into Wolfenstein_3D#Legacy. Btw, Tibo Software's website is still online. IgelRM (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrocles (half-brother of Socrates)

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

Not notable. He has precisely one mention in the complete works of Plato. All the information is extrapolated from what we know of Socrates. Remsense ‥ 论 00:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (if possible?) to Phaenarete, which already mentions him. No need to merge, as there is no useful information here, and one of the sources is not reliable (geni_family_tree), and the other only has a sentence saying that Socrates had a half-brother Patrocles. The disambig page Patrocles could say "Patrocles, son of Phaenarete and half-brother of the philosopher Socrates". (If any other editors are aware of more information and sources about this Patrocles that could be added to improve this article, I'd be happy to reconsider.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having reconsidered, as per my reply to Uncle G below, I am striking my Redirect !vote. Nails 2002 is clearly SIGCOV, and with the other, shorter sources and explanation of his roles, adds up to at least WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Many decent 21st century sources (e.g. Miller's and Platter's Plato's Apology of Socrates: A Commentary (UOP, 2012, ISBN 9780806186054)), as opposed to the family tree WWW site that is used in the article, point to Nails 2002, pp. 218–219, Patrocles of Alopece, son of Chaeredemus harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNails2002 (help) as a good recent authority. It has the original Greek name, the citations to classical sources (including Euthydemus), and a lengthy discussion of Patrocles's possible career on the Board of Ten archons (that followed the fall of the Thirty Tyrants) after age 30. Uncle G (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nails, Debra (2002). "Patrocles of Alopece, son of Chaeredemus". The People of Plato: A Prosopography of Plato and Other Socratics. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing. pp. 218–219. ISBN 9781603840279.

Uncle G, I'd be happy to reconsider, but I have no access to Nails' book myself (Google Books preview does not show those pages, nor the Works cited and consulted (which might provide other sources too)). Other sources I have found have at most a sentence or two about Patrocles, though admittedly more than is in this article. Xenophon: Ethical Principles and Historical Enquiry p286-287 says "Socrates' half-brother Patrocles was King Archon of the board of ten oligarchs who replaced the Thirty after their downfall"; Socrates in Love p 170 says Patrocles "may have had political ambitions; he is named as holding an official position in the Athenian treasury in the late fifth century". The Bloomsbury Companion to Socrates names Patrocles as one of seven who fled into exile as a result of the scandals and failed oligarchic coup of 415. That does sound like he was notable. I do not feel competent to add that info to the article, though! RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above, unless additional detail sufficient to prove notability is forthcoming: the best way to prove that would be to add some substantial, reliably cited mentions. If you do this, feel free to ping me to reconsider my !vote. Brief and passing mentions (even in good sources, as those discussed above seem to be) are not in themselves sufficient to do this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nine+ Records

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

The record label fails WP:GNG and is not notable. All of the sources cited in the article are press release info about the the label's launch. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a promotional website. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Davido. This just got started and doesn't meet WP:MUSIC's sense of an important label, but including information at the founder's page and redirecting there makes sense. Chubbles (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]