Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

4 February 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 03	February 05 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Emerald Moon Records

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Looking at discussion in the first AfD, I am not seeing much of a difference. Recreated by an apparent fan/COI. Graywalls (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and Maryland. Graywalls (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eason Chan's FEAR and DREAMS World Tour

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

Article about a concert tour, not properly referenced as passing WP:NTOUR. As always, concert tours are not automatically entitled to their own Wikipedia articles just because they happened -- in the exact words of NTOUR, what is required is that the sources "show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms", while "sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability."
But as usual for bad articles about concert tours, this is just "tour happened, so here are the set list and the venues, the end", with absolutely none of the content about any noteworthy cultural, creative or social context that NTOUR requires, and it's "referenced" entirely to a single Instagram post rather than any GNG-worthy reliable sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Hong Kong. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Múdry

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

Múdry played a total of 160 minutes at professional level to date. The only secondary sources I found are Netky (Netky June 2014 • [Netky July 2014]) and Teraz, none of which cover him in-depth. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Horelica Tunnel

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

Stub doesnt meet SIGCOV, can be merged into D3 motorway (Slovakia) article Soybean46 (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Slovakia. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 14:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Matthai

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

Falling short of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics Cinder painter (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 14:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Dalby

AfDs for this article:

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

Still no evidence he meets WP:MUSICBIO yet. In a WP:BEFORE search the only secondary coverage I could find of him was this article in the local weekly Kent Messenger. Couldn't find any RS that he'd written for, sung for or appeared in anything on the BBC, just fragments on social media, Soundcloud, etc. Editors hunting for coverage, please note there's an unrelated jockey with the same name, so you might want to exclude the word "jockey" on a search. Wikishovel (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Hong Kong, and England. Wikishovel (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete: no indication of notability, fails WP:MUSICBIO.~~ Anktjha (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC) sock Girth Summit _(blether) 12:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, no sources and nothing online to show he meets WP:GNG. Junbeesh (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is quite a lot of coverage in digitised British newspapers. I'm pretty sure he will meet WP:GNG and/or WP:MUSICBIO. I'll add some sources. We really need the British Newspaper Archive in the Wikipedia Library so other editors can find the sources there too! RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely support making the British Newspaper Archive accessible, would be very helpful. Starklinson (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leave Graham Dalby the way as it is, it will eventually meet WP:MUSICBIO. I will add sources to it. It was under construction, don't take it down. Mrtoadtv (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Likely more coverage in older newspapers, there's this [1], not a great reveiw, but it counts. Oaktree b (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's also a short staff bio on Allmusic referenced in the article, which is an WP:RSMUSIC, and an album review in The Syncopated Times now cited too. The BBC website has evidence on his contributions, including Dalby and the orchestra he founded playing a significant section on BBC Radio 2 - see [2]. ResonantDis_tortion 18:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I gather that the reason this article was nominated for deletion less than 7 hours after it was created is that it was previously deleted, 7 years ago. Given that the article has an Under Construction notice, though, surely more time could have been allowed for the article creator to work on it? It could have been tagged for whatever the issues were thought to be, rather than bringing it straight to AfD. And, article creator, I recommend that you work on new articles as drafts and move them when they're more ready. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it would have been better if I'd moved it to draft rather than taken it straight to AFD. Wikishovel (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject and the band he founded have had verified major segments on national radio ([3] in 2015) and on national TV ([4] in 1988). This meets WP:MUSICBIO#12. Also - there are a number of secondary sources sufficient to provide, at minimum, coverage for a start class biographical article. Article has also been significantly updated since nomination with 11 citations added. ResonantDis_tortion 20:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS, meets WP:MUSICBIO #1, 10 and 12. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagwa Love Trap conspiracy theory

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

POVFORK of Love jihad conspiracy theory. There is absolutely not enough coverage to warrant a separate article and the content already existed at Love jihad conspiracy theory#"Reverse"_love_jihad. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories, Discrimination, Islam, Hinduism, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is literally the reverse of the topic it is being claimed it is a POVFORK of. They are more like the opposites or antitheses of each other than anything else. And the page here is supported by its own dozen references. It's possible that both of these pages could be nested under a broader parent article at a neutral title encompassing both children, but there's no reason to nest one topic under its thematic sibling. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Based on the content of this article, it appears to be a fringe social media arises minor conspiracy theory lacking credible evidences. The topic is primarily sourced from opinion pieces, social media debates. If the sources mainly discuss it as a reactionary narrative to Love Jihad, the content could potentially be merged into a broader article on interfaith conspiracy theories in India (love jihad) but its look like POV forked already. Mr.Hanes Talk 04:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the topic is about a conspiracy theory, but the discussion of the topic is not itself fringe. The pieces by the BBC, TheQuint and Scroll.in are all news, not opinion. As the BBC notes, it's an online trend causing real-world harm. Agreed that it could be merged into a broader article on interfaith conspiracy theories in India, but that page isn't Love Jihad, which is one specific conspiracy theory. One conspiracy can't be a POVFORK of a different conspiracy theory. A POVFORK is the same topic or scope covered from a divergent POV. That is not the situation here even remotely. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With due respect, I believe this article deserves to stand on its own. Over the past five or six years, the Bhagwa Love Trap has been widely discussed, primarily with claims coming from the Muslim community. Additionally, several major and reliable media organizations have covered this issue extensively (WP:RS). Baqi:) (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Can't meet WP:GNG. Should be moved back to the main article. Agletarang (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The dubious notion of whether Love Jihad is a parent here aside, that's called a merge, not a delete. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a part of Love Jihad topic rather than being notable on its own. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : The topic has gained attention on social media for minor period of time and in certain fringe groups, references provided, such as Scroll, Boomlive, and Alt News, primarily discuss the conspiracy theory as a reaction to the "Love Jihad" narrative rather than providing evidence of its widespread acceptance or impact. And the main article Love jihad already mentioned about this side. I don't think this minor pov piece has that much encyclopaedic value to remain a standalone separate piece. CelesteQuill (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These AfD responses are incoherent. Quite literally none of the reasons provided by anyone merits deletion. Since most arguments appear to some variation on the theme of the topic not having standalone notability, the only two reasonable options in this situation, where the title here remains a viable redirect, are redirect or merge. And since the claimed parent only has one sentence and one source on the subject, whereas this page has an entire page and 12 sources on the subject, the material should obviously be merged. Deletion is a nonsensical vote to simply delete the content and sourcing, including sources like the BBC that are not present on the other page. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG sources discuss the conspiracy theory as a reaction to the "Love Jihad" rather than on its own merit.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree with the nom's assertion that this article is a WP:POVFORK since the topic appears notable on its own. It certainly has WP:SIGCOV - in my opinion enough to pass WP:GNG.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moneyview

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

Reviewed all sources and what I found are press releases, primary sources and passing mentions of the company. As of the time of nomination, sources number one to 8 are mostly press releases, and from number 9 to 19 are mostly primary sources. The few ones that look reliable are not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC. Mekomo (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Companies, and India. Mekomo (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are full of PR and sponsored articles WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Fails GNG and NCORP. GrabUp - Talk 08:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: While the article doesn't have good references, the company definitely satisfies WP:CORP. There are a lot more recent articles about the company like [5], [6] and [7]. This company is one of a handful of companies to achieve Unicorn status in India in 2024, and, as a result, has definitely received significant coverage in reputed independent newspapers. It has recently acquired another company, which has led to further coverage on it. It has articles specifically written about it from reputed agencies, even before its Unicorn status, which satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. These include The Hindu, CNBC, Economic Times, and Money Control. There are also articles talking about the company on Indian Express, Inc42, Zee Business, Deccan Chronicle, and others; and, this company has one of India's most popular celebrity actors as a brand ambassador. Shashwat986 → talk 08:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I reviewed all the sources and also found that many links are PR-type links, as pointed out by Mekomo. But it looks like this company recently published a lot of news in notable sources, which are reliable and sufficient to meet the WP:NBASIC and WP:ORGIND criteria as mentioned by Shashwat986. The most recent coverage includes its transition to Unicorn status in 2024, FY24 revenue, and the acquisition of the fintech startup Jify, all reported by reputable independent newschannels. Medhagoswami55 → talk 15:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that while I am associated with Moneyview, these edits are made in a personal capacity based on my knowledge of the company. They are not influenced by my role at Moneyview. I am committed to maintaining transparency and upholding the spirit of Wikipedia. Medhagoswami55 (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable company using PR sources to get their article here. Many of the listed sources are copycat of one another. Patre23 (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Riyan Al Jidani

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

Reviewed all sources cited but none is reliable to meet WP:GNG or other criteria. Described as a writer, there is no good review of his book(s) other than a single review by the newspaper where he is a reporter. Mekomo (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, Sports, and Saudi Arabia. Mekomo (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Overview: Riyan Al-Jidani
Criterion	Supporting Evidence
Notability Through Reliable Sources	Featured in Arab News. Source Featued in Saudi Sports Company, Source
	Participated in interviews and podcasts Podtail.com Source Al Arabiya Source
	Conclusion The subject has been featured in multiple media sources. While these sources indicate some level of recognition, the depth and independence of the coverage vary. Arab News provides independent coverage of his contributions to women's football, while sources like the SSC's social post and the Al Arabiya video do not constitute in-depth independent coverage under Wikipedia's WP:GNG guidelines N No or few suitable sources that could be cited.
Authorship of Notable Works	Authored 4 books, Japanese Football, Asia's Arabs, The Pink Field and Women's Football.
	only 9 ratings for his three works on googlereads Source
	Conclusion While the subject has authored multiple books, the limited number of ratings and reviews on platforms like Goodreads indicates insufficient recognition or critical reception. These works do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines without broader independent reviews or recognition. N Likely not notable
Professional Roles and Contributions	An editor at Kooora.com (i.e. Article).
	Women's Football expert in Saudi Arabia. Source
	Conclusion The subject has held significant roles, including editor at Kooora.com and a women’s football expert in Saudi Arabia. However, these roles alone may not establish notability without broader independent recognition. N Likely not notable
General Conclusion	The subject has received some media attention and held notable professional roles, but the lack of independent, in-depth coverage and critical reviews suggests that they do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Louis Tordini

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

Non-notable author article, which somebody claiming to be the subject has been editing Orange Mike | Talk 05:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Things That Hang from Trees, unless that page also goes up for deletion. --Richard Yin (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 21 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) 06:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. The film based off his book received made up in one day awards for an independent film. I see no significant coverage of him, his book, or the film. The only review of the derivative film on Google news is from Slant here. His page (I refuse to call it an article) is close to WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to rescue. AgusTates (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antorborti

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

This unreleased film (apparently filmed in 2022) fails WP:NFILM, which specifies that Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. This movie's coverage is limited to tabloid-style mentions in unbylined articles that trigger the concerns of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Thus, the articles that reference to the film's production are not reliable sources. Until such time as the the production is confirmed by reliable sources or the film is released and given full-length reviews by multiple reliable sources, there is no pass of WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. (Note that the promotional bio of the filmmaker by the same page creator is also up for deletion for similar reasons.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete: non notable film and sources are unhelpful.~~ Anktjha (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC) sock Girth Summit _(blether) 12:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify.: And wait for release. Not sure all the coverage is really "not reliable", btw. For example, please note that established tabloids can be used per WP:TABLOID. What makes you say, for example, that, Bangladesh Pratidin cannot be used for verification of uncontroversial facts? even not bylined articles. Also, please note that, even if certain users insist that that section of an informational page can apply to all the subctontinent, using WP:NEWSORGINDIA for other countries than India is something that may be frowned upon by certain users. The lead actor having died last year and this apparently wrapped film being one of his last, I suppose a Redirect and [minimal/simple mention] merge to Ahmed Rubel could also be considered. (with the following source, https://www.alokitobangladesh.com/print-edition/entertainment/171837/আসছে-আহমেদ-রুবেল-অভিনীত-সিনেমা-অন্তর্বর্তী or https://follow-upnews.com/জীবনযাপন/এসএম-কাইয়ুম-এর-পরিচালনা/ -Mushy Yank. 10:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC) [For the record, full quote of applicable guideline, above in green is: "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." (emphasis mine).-Mushy Yank. 10:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)][reply]
MY, I fundamentally disagree that the Akolito Bangladesh story (authored by "Entertainment Reporter") and the Follow-UpNews story (with no byline at all) constitute the kind of WP:SIGCOV necessary to make the production itself notable. They cannot be considered reliable. WP:NEWSORGINDIA applies to all South Asian entertainment coverage, in which unbylined coverage has a reasonably high likelihood of being paid/sponsored placement and thus cannot be relied upon per the WP:RSP guideline of Exercise caution in using such sources for factual claims or to establish notability. Look at the tone and language of the article, its placement in the publication, use of generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter or reviewer, overlap in language with articles found in other publications and on other websites, and others. And for a film to remain unreleased nearly three years after shooting suggests this film may never see the light of day, making a "draftify" outcome less useful. (And given the potential COI and promotional nature of the page creator's edits, I suspect this would result in a quick return to mainspace and we'd be right back here again.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971"the Akolito Bangladesh story (authored by "Entertainment Reporter") and the Follow-UpNews story (with no byline at all) constitute the kind of WP:SIGCOVnecessary to make the production itself notable.": but that's not at all what I said! I said to use them to verify and source the role in case it is redirected and merged.

As for NEWSORGINDIA, again, I understood why you wish to use it, but doing so has been said to hurt the feelings of certain non-Indian South Asian users (and probably of some Indian users too, or even third-party users). To extend it to all South Asian entertainment might also be seen as expressing a Wikipedia:Systemic bias.

Thank you anyway. -Mushy Yank. 20:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S M Kayum

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

Highly promotional bio for a Bangladeshi filmmaker whose first film, Antorborti (also nominated for deletion), has not yet been released. At best it's WP:TOOSOON, but either way this filmmaker fails WP:NFILM and WP:NCREATIVE, since none of his other works are significant. The sources are almost entirely unbylined tabloid news from Bangladeshi outlets that have the same WP:NEWSORGINDIA problems with undisclosed paid placement. On top of this, almost none of these sources provide WP:SIGCOV of Kayum. In my search and review I found no qualifying sources for WP:N. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Poetry, and Bangladesh. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: See AfD about film. -Mushy Yank. 09:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 in Scandinavian music

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

We have individual pages for 2015 in Danish music and the other 4 Scandinavian countries, there is no reason to have another page grouping these 5 as well, "Scandinavian music" is not some monolithic block or typical genre.

The same applies to these other years as well:

Fram (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Fram (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that the concept of "Scandinavian music" is a nonstarter. Though there are only 3 countries in Scandinavia and not 5, there is not that much overlap between the music scenes as to constitute a common sphere. The information about individual concerts and even festivals is not encyclopedically relevant and should be burnt with fire. Relevant albums should be mentioned in country-specific pages where applicable (i.e. 2015 in Swedish music – the albums might already be mentioned there, though). Since there is no one target to redirect to, delete all. Geschichte (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The creation of such articles should be purely country-based. Orientls (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. The suggestion that we have articles on music for these individual countries is erroneous. Where are 2024 in Danish music, 2024 in Norwegian music, 2024 in Finnish music, 2024 in Swedish music? Scandinavia is as clear-cut a region as is Ireland. Why remove useful information with nothing to replace it? I'm baffled as to the reason for this nomination. Deb (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- 2024 in Scandinavian music is not up for deletion. For the nominated years, we do have individual articles for Norway, Denmark, ... Fram (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  So why would you delete a range of articles in the middle of a range of articles that are being kept up to date, in order to replace it with a range of incomplete articles whose creator was blocked years ago and hasn't returned? Deb (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - The other Scandinavia ones should later be deleted after the necessary country articles have been made, and no new Scandinavia ones should be created. Funny, by the way, that the original creator was blocked for copyvio, while you created e.g. the 2015 in Scandinavia page by an unattributed copy of all his work at the 2015 in Norway page. Fram (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cut it out, right now. You haven't achieved consensus as yet. Deb (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "should later be deleted" =/= now. Fram (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - These are lists that appear to fail the WP:NLIST criteria as a notable grouping discussed by reliable sources. Scandinavian Music is not a defined genre of music. Even the term Scandinavia is ill-defined - it may or may not include various territories depending upon the context. It seems these lists would be better if they followed the individual territories and can align with the current Wikipedia articles separated into territories such as Music of Iceland, Music of Finland, Music of Sweden, etc. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fram, this AFD is not formatted as a bundled nomination and so our closing editing tool, XFDcloser, will not recognize the closure decision as relevant to any articles but the one in the page title. Please look over the instructions at WP:AFD for formatting multiple article nominations so that this process is smooth for the admin who closes this discussion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I hope. Fram (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deb. As far as I can tell from what I found in Google Books, "Scandinavian music" is a thing. You'll find books on "Scandinavian music" generally, and comments such as "Scandinavian music as a whole" [8] and "Scandinavian music . . . is distinctive" and is "a school": [9]. You will find, even in English, Billboard spotlight "review of the year" articles on Scandanavian music in 1971, 1972, 1973, 1979, 1981 and probably every other year, though I can't search the entire run. And Scandanavia has had music periodicals since at least the 18th century: [10]. And I think that indicates that most years in Scandanavian music are likely notable. James500 (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- But what's the point of just repeating the information on the standard by country pages into a grouped page? We are just increasing the maintenance cost for no good reason, it's not as if the entries in the Scandinavia pages are about some cross-Scandinavian things. The 2015 page Is an 80% copy of the Norway page, with some other stuff copied from the other country pages. It adds no value at all. Fram (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  As you are fully aware from the previous conversation, most of the years don't have articles for individual countries within Scandinavia. The time for this discussion is when you've created the relevant articles. Deb (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @James500:, I appreciate you finding those sources. Unfortunately, reading through them only seems to confirm that "Scandinavian Music" is an ambiguous lumping and the music articles are still written on a national basis instead. For example. the 1924 Herbert Westerby book that you cite has a brief page attempting to describe a few similar elements among Danish, Swedish, Finnish and Norwegian music -- and then spends the next 35 pages describing the pianoforte music broken down by each individual country. (Westerly does the same with his chapters combining Spain & Portugal and Austria & Germany.) I also read the 1973 Billboard Magazine and see it lumps the countries into a general section -- but all the articles and data are written about individual nations with Billboard using individual editors from each country. Unless Scandinavian Music can be defined as a unambiguous genre, it still seems to me that listing by individual country makes more sense. And removes the duplication that occurs in 2015 in European music. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - If sources say in express words that "Scandanavian music" is a thing, we may getting into the realms of original research if we try to dispute that. Our article on Nordic folk music says it is Scandanavian, and a search for "Scandanavian folk music" in GNews indicates that it still exists, see for example, this Scandinavian folk music festival in 2017: [11]. The 1981 Billboard article, for example, does contain comments about Scandanavia as a whole, such as those in the article "Copryrights gain value". That information could not be placed in the national articles. Music does not necessarily confine itself to national boundaries. The present Sovereign states did not always exist, their boundaries have repeatedly changed, and they use each others languages (eg Swedish is an official language of Finland, and is spoken in Denmark, and Finnish is spoken in Sweden). One can find, for example, articles on Swedish music in Finland, and Finnish musicians in Sweden: [12] (and that article says that a purely national perspective of music is not sufficient to address certain topics). I could argue that our national articles are "ambiguous lumpings". If, for the sake of argument, the quantity of cross-Scandanavian material were felt to be too small to support a separate article, then this page could be redirected without prejudice to 2015 in European music#Scandanavia, and the cross-Scandanavian material added there. That would not require either deletion or an AfD. I was not aware that we had articles on European music. Alternatively, one could merge into decades in Scandanavian music. James500 (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with you about music crossing national boundaries. That's my point. Your link to Nordic folk music is a good example because it also includes all the Baltic nations and Russia in a discussion of "Scandinavian folk music." Should Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia be included in the 2015 in Scandinavian music list because Finland is? Is Greenland included or excluded because it has a separate music tradition? We agree that music can be a mosh pit across national borders throughout the world. That is exactly what I mean by an "ill-defined lumping." The above lists in this AFD seem to require some WP:OR to determine what is or isn't included. It is better for these music lists -- which are only about dates & events -- to be grouped by well-defined national boundaries as individual nation lists (e.g. 2015 in Norwegian music, 2015 in Swedish music, etc.). That better meets the selection guideline in WP:SELCRIT and the grouping guideline in WP:NLIST. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - Scandinavian folk music is inherently Scandinavian, and should be included in this article, regardless of where it is produced. If Scandinavian folk music was produced in Adélie Land, it would potentially belong in this article. If some of the music in the Baltic nations and Russia is Scandanavian folk music, that does not imply that the rest of their music is Scandanavian. When ABBA perform in Britain, they are performing Swedish music, and that does not imply that Rod Stewart's music is also Swedish. If a reliable source says in express words that music is Scandanavian, there is no original research involved in its inclusion in the article. The national boundaries are not well defined in relation to music. The national boundaries give no help in classifying something like Finnish-Swedish music. James500 (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        The entries are not about Scandinavian folk music. And that would seem like such a small niche that a "year in x" page is not warranted. Geschichte (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 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 02:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. "Scandinavian music" is not a notable concept. Astaire (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all.James500s rationale and Google books research is what convinces me about notability. Also there is room for expansion.BabbaQ (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Digging through Google Books to find two publications from more than a century ago ([13] [14]) that briefly use the term does not demonstrate that "Scandinavian music" is a notable concept. Nor does it justify that we need an article about "2015 in Scandinavian music" in which any band from Scandinavia is included, when all the sources presented so far are about classical or folk music. Astaire (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting my comments by cherry picking from them. I did not "dig" through Google Books, nor did I find only two publications. In addition to the ten sources that I have already linked to directly, I could point to a mountain of other sources, such as Bo Wallner's Vår tids musik i Norden: från 20-tal till 60-tal (1968), which is 435 pages on the subject of Scandanavian music from the 1920s to the 1960s, and John Horton's Scandanavian Music (1963), and Yoell's The Nordic Sound (1974) which "aims to supply . . . information about Scandanavian music", or to a mountain of other comments such as "those characteristics which belong to Scandanavian music": [15] and references to the "characteristics of Scandinavian music" in other books, such as Britannica. If you are going to argue about the number of sources I have cited, I have to ask: How many sources do you want me to cite? Please specify the number of sources you want, and I will cite that number of sources.

The reality is that anyone with eyes can see that "Scandanavian music" obviously satisfies GNG and is obviously a notable topic. The real question for this AfD is whether the obviously notable topic of Scandanavian music is sufficiently redundant to other notable topics that the "discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article" in WP:N applies. That is the question you should address. James500 (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @User:Vanderwaalforces: WP:RELIST says "relisting should not be a substitute for a no consensus closure . . . repeatedly relisting discussions merely in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended. In general, a discussion should not be relisted more than twice" (bold text and emphasis in the original). If the discussion has not reached a consensus after two relists, it is not likely to reach a consensus after a third relist either. It is not possible to force people to !vote. James500 (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@James500 Why do you think relisting a discussion for the third time is forcing people to !vote? That is a strange comment. Also, If the discussion has not reached a consensus after two relists, it is not likely to reach a consensus after a third relist either is this statistically correct? I mean, I can't link right off the bat, but I have seen discussions where the outcome was clear after a third relist. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comitê Nacional de Arte Brasileira

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

None of the mentioned sources are reliable or demonstrate notability. GNG is not met. Skyshiftertalk 13:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator Wilbr2003 has added false information regarding the organization to multiple articles [16] [17] [18]. They also created articles for some of its supposed members which are also in AfD. Skyshiftertalk 14:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator should explain why the references are unreliable. Several seem to be mainstream news media. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of them are mainstream, and that's clear when you look at the sources. They are blogs or databases. Skyshiftertalk 20:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per Skyshifter. No independent and reliable sources, just circular quotes. Svartner (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added some sources and info to the article. Some info has been removed by the AfD nominator with the summary "this is false information" with no explanation of why it's false. Please have the courtesy to explain, not just make assertions. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See here.

I should've explained the entire organization and associated articles are fishy. There isn't a single mention of the organization before 2024. Its website is full of AI articles and the first post is from 2024. There is no indication that the organization existed before 2024 and all sources that mention it are unreliable blogs. Skyshiftertalk 13:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one weird example [19]. "Portal S4" was created on June 21, 2009 [20] and there's a news article supposedly from May 9, 2009, talking about the organization [21]. I don't know what's happening off-wiki regarding the organization but it is at very least strange. Skyshiftertalk 15:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gito Sales

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

All sources are unreliable or don't demonstrate notability. GNG is not met. Skyshiftertalk 14:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete: no indication of notability.~~ Anktjha (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC) sock Girth Summit _(blether) 12:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I do not think that just because a source is in a foreign language, it should be considered unreliable. Since he has a lot of coverage in his own country, he is notable. Many sources are already in the article that seem good such as ops4.com, cnab.art.br, jornaltribuna, jornaldr1.Darkm777 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkm777: Who said that the problem are the sources being foreign though? I am Brazilian and I know how to analyze Brazilian sources, and all of the websites you menioned are clearly unreliable. Skyshiftertalk 04:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject doesn't have this coverage so much that there isn't even an article on pt.wiki. Svartner (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Fields School, New Delhi

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

Completely unsourced article about a school. As always, schools are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability. But this cites no sourcing at all, the only footnote that's ever been in it in the past is its own self-published website about itself rather than GNG-worthy coverage, and it's written more like the "what to expect if you choose our school for your child" profile that one might see on the school's own website than like a proper encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete– no sources in the article, fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. EmilyR34 (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Raza (actor)

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

Disputed draftification. I do not believe redraftifying would allow this to be accepted because no amount of editing can conjure notability from nowhere. Fails WP:NACTOR. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, and Pakistan. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with at least two main/lead roles in notable productions + other significant roles. Can be expanded through sources like https://www.thenews.com.pk/magazine/you/1063549-ali-raza (containing an interview; bylined presentation). Declining creation because iit needs improvement could have been OK but not because it does not meet WP:NACTOR. Because it does. -Mushy Yank. 12:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that interview means means much for to WP:Notability, see WP:INTERVIEW. And declining wasn't an option for the nominator, as they said in the nom, this is a disputed draftification; this is an procedurally correct nomination. Follow up @Mushy Yank, I'm just going through the filmography on the article, which two are you considering main/lead roles in notable productions? I'm not sure I'm totally convinced but I could be persuaded to agree. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobby CohnOh, no the interview is not to prove notability directly, just an exemple of what can be used to improve the page and verify the importance of the roles. Regarding procedure; I did not say this could not be AfDed (everything can), just commenting on the fact that the nomination's rationale is based on NACTOR, just like the reason to decline the creation at AfC was. Lead/main cast roles in Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri, & Noor Jahan (2024 TV series) ; significant roles (not minor) in Duniyapur (TV series) & Gunah (TV series). I'm leaving it at that. Best, -Mushy Yank. 20:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)EDIT: +lead role in Iqtidar (see page)-Mushy Yank. 18:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. --- Bhairava7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 14:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having lead roles does not make someone inherently notable. They need the significant coverage to support. The references are interviews, puff pieces, or otherwise unreliable. On a side note, this was more than just draftification. It was draftified, then declined, then still moved to the mainspace. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Echoing the nom, fails NACTOR and GNG. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but "fail[ing] WP:NACTOR", how, please? -Mushy Yank. 12:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it otherwise? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the guideline and read the page. It is obviously a pass of WP: NACTOR. See my comment above. -Mushy Yank. 21:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read the guidelines and read the page. In my opinion, he did not have any significant roles, in fact filmography section is devoid of any reliable sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No significant roles????? REALLY? I will assume good faith then.... if you honestly want to check, just click on the links about the series.....I’m leaving it at that. -Mushy Yank. 21:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does a mention in a Wikipedia article confer notability? Almost, none of those articles has his role supported by a reliable source. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost? Meaning, you find a few that confirm them, after all? :D Again, I am assuming good faith. -Mushy Yank. 22:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the content covered in other Wikipedia articles about the subject does not establish notability. Almost meaning the ones I checked lack reliable sources amounting to WP:SIGCOV. He is a young emerging actor but does not have coverage at the level of establishing notability. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NACTOR is not about SIGCOV (just read it, it's not long), NACTOR is about significance of roles in notable productions. 2 sources in English almost at random to confirm 2 different significant roles in 2 notable productions: https://www.dawn.com/news/1773436 ; https://images.dawn.com/news/1192720. Again, read my comments above. Thank you. (NB- I never said that mentions in WP confer notability, please read me carefully.) -Mushy Yank. 23:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NACTOR is 100% about significant coverage. Again, it is under additional criteria (a subsection of WP:BIO which is the actual guideline) and says "may" which is only an indication a person could meet the overall WP:BIO guideline. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. See below and read the guideline. -Mushy Yank. 00:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is barely mentioned in those two sources. In my opinion, both of these roles do not fulfill the merits of WP:NACTOR. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But mentioned, right, with his roles? That are significant (not minor), and in notable productions? Correct? So, well, NACTOR applies.. -Mushy Yank. 00:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

significant roles in multiple productions, in my opinion, a role is only significant if it is thoroughly discussed in reliable sources. Merely the role being mentioned does not make it significant. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Merely the role being mentioned does not make it significant", sure, absolutely, but again, that is not what I said; it depends on what is said about it. Significant roles in the production (lead/main/recurring/etc) make a NACTOR pass; just like a director plays a significant role in the making of a film. A noted part in/of a noted film can be considered notable enough and that is why such guidelines exist. If coverage allows to verify it, it can/may be considered enough. By the same token, it may be considered insufficient and I understand that is your take but that does not change the fact that it's a NACTOR pass. Really no further comment from me here. Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 01:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline reads "may be considered notable" (as pointed out in other AfD's), not "is considered notable." The person could have 20 significant roles and not be notable unless there is significant coverage to support. Here, the coverage falls short.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even GNG uses ”may”. WP: NACTOR is a solid reason to keep a page. You can judge it’s not enough if you want but still it’s a perfectly acceptable reason to consider a person notable. This is a NACTOR pass and that is that and that is the applicable guideline. -Mushy Yank. 21:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NACTOR is not a pass/fail, it is only an indicator of WP:BASIC which requires significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is simply. not. true. NACTOR is a specific notability guideline for people. You may not like it, you may want to change it or to get rid of it, and you still may !vote to delete or to redirect a page when a subject passes its requirements but it is a notability guideline and the applicable one in the present case. Thank you for your time. -Mushy Yank. 22:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not. It is only part of a guideline that says "may" (meaning "could be" or "possibly"). If you look at the entire guideline (not just the tiny carve out under "additional criteria"), you will see that a person must still meet WP:BASIC. It is not what I like or don't. It is literally what the guidelines says. I do not see anything that says a person "is" notable if they have had significant roles. If I missed that part, please point it out. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but again, I am very sorry but what you are saying is not true. Again, even GNG does not say something like "Subjects Meeting GNG "ARE" notable and this cannot be discussed and their notability cannot be challenged".

The page WP:Notability (people) says: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards...."(=additional criteria [including NACTOR] ). Not "if they meet any of the following standards AND the basic criteria".

Again, one can perfectly judge that a WP:NACTOR pass (or a GNG pass, or a NDIRECTOR pass, or a BASIC pass) is not sufficient but one can also think it's enough; and that is one reason why AfDs exist. I will rephrase: a simple WP:NACTOR pass CAN be (and often is) considered enough for notability (and that is because it is a (specific) notability guideline); it does not guarantee inclusion, that's all.

You may not like it, you may call that specific guideline tiny and want to change it but that is the way it (currently) is. See Cavarrone's comment on the thread you yourself initiated there, please......I really have no further comment. -Mushy Yank. 00:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacy by assertion. I also never called something tiny. Again, please show me where it says someone "IS" notable for having significant roles. I will not hold my breath here. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacy by assertion?? :D Sure, if you say so. "I also never called something tiny." But of course you did. "(not just the tiny carve out under "additional criteria")" No further comment.... -Mushy Yank. 00:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't twist my words to support your assertion. "Tiny" referred to the size, not the significance. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't twist your words (let alone to support any assertion of mine, mind you). I just quoted one word you wrote. And you denied having used it. That's all. -Mushy Yank. 00:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Final question which still hasn't been answered. Is there anywhere in NACTOR that says an actor "is" notable for having significant roles?--CNMall41 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 11:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Meeting WP:NACTOR is a valid reason to keep an article, but the discussion so far has focused on GNG and on meta disputes about the wording of NACTOR - evaluating whether this person's roles are sufficient to count toward that guideline is necessary to establish consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question - @Vanamonde93:, for clarification, are you saying that someone would meet NACTOR for significant roles despite not having the significant coverage to support? Meaning, as long as we verify those are significant roles then NACTOR is met? --CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting NACTOR is usually enough to keep a standalone article, so long as there is enough reliably-sourced material to write a BLP-compliant article. All of our notability guidelines - including GNG - are written with some degree of qualification, because they are meant to be interpreted with common sense and allowing for exceptions. You need to look at the entire documentation, and the history of applicability, to determine whether a notability guideline is treated independently from GNG or not. NACTOR, alongside NPOL, WP:PROF, NAUTHOR, and a few others, is typically treated as an alternative to GNG. I am explicitly not stating that this individual is notable, only that their roles require evaluation with respect to NACTOR. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree with that assessment. I believe some arguments in this and other discussions is that NACTOR is in itself enough despite NACTOR saying "may be notable." It is also a subsection of WP:BIO which still requires people to meet WP:BASIC which is where I think there is confusion. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You say you agree with me, but what you're saying is directly in contradiction to what I said: NACTOR can indeed be enough without GNG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How so? I referred to WP:BASIC, not WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you expect a reply from me on an obscure page, it would be useful to ping me next time...WP:BASIC does not in any way obviate other criteria. NPOL, NAUTHOR, PROF, NACTOR, and a few other criteria have long been held to be sufficient despite GNG. NSPORTS was too, before the community decided it wasn't. "Presumed notable doesn't mean notable" is not the gotcha that you seem to think it is - it means that common sense needs to be applied in every case, not that that particular criterion can be set aside altogether. The summary at the top of WP:BIO also uses the "presumed" language with respect to what is essentially GNG - yet nobody would argue that GNG was insufficient. Anyhow, this is the last I will say about this, because I don't want or need to persuade you - I am only explaining how a closer will usually weigh arguments. A clear NACTOR pass with sufficient sourcing to write a biography will usually be kept. A clear GNG pass will also usually be kept. A failure of both criteria will usually be deleted. I have no opinions on which case is true here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean for it to be a subject of contention. I was discussing NACTOR versus NBASIC and you were discussing NACTOR versus GNG. NACTOR uses the term "may" which means there may be significant coverage. GNG uses the term "presumed" which means there is likely coverage. Some cite NACTOR as meaning if they have significant roles then the coverage doesn't need to exist. And, I am not saying that off of a guess - it has been the argument for a select few in many deletion discussions, including one that just closed as delete.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has had significant roles in two or three TV series which have Wikipedia articles (so are presumably notable), so he meets WP:NACTOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Presumably notable" is not notable. We need significant coverage to support that presumption. Can you provide a list of the sources you feel are significant coverage?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(1) We don't need significant coverage for someone to meet WP:NACTOR, we just need evidence that they had significant roles in notable shows. (2) I said the TV series were presumably notable. The series are not being debated here, and do each have two reviews, hence my "presumably". RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did read that wrong. Apologies. As far as "just need[ing] evidence," how are we able to get that evidence with there being significant coverage in reliable sources? Are press releases okay? Primary sources? Honest question. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The presumed notability of the TV series does not necessarily indicate that the actor had a significant role. It is entirely possible that their role was minor. On what basis do you consider their roles to be significant, and how do we establish that? Shouldn't we determine this by examining coverage in reliable sources? Do you really think an actor with a significant role would only be casually mentioned in an article about the series spanning ten paragraphs? Wouldn't you expect a bit more detailed coverage for a truly significant role? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are poor and there is not enough significant coverage on the career and reliable sources to verify the roles (if lead or not) played by the actor. I have seen "Noor Jahan" show and the actor didn't have a lead but a supporting role (one of the sons of the lead female character who played title role) in that show and the page wrongly calls it lead role. So without verification and evidence on the roles played and significant coverage, we cannot assume the subject meets WP:NACTOR. RangersRus (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the page rapidly again to address raised concerns.-Mushy Yank. 19:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Iqtidar: The only significant role I can verify as of now is from Iqtidar. In the future, coverage from Tauba, Girhein and Dastak may help establish notability. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR, he has had significant roles in two or three TV series. NACTOR is enough to keep an article. Jitujadab90 (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which roles and where is the significant coverage supporting they are significant?--CNMall41 (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria such as WP:ARCHITECT, WP:ARTIST, WP:AUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE, WP:FILMMAKER, WP:DIRECTOR,WP:JOURNALIST, WP:POET, WP:PRODUCER, WP:PHOTOGRAPHER, WP:ENT, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:NACTOR, WP:NMODEL. And he subject is notable as per NACTOR. Jitujadab90 (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already discussed in this afd that was just closed for a page you created and in the deletion review discussion for that page which is ongoing. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See above comment of Vanamonde93, RebeccaGreen. Jitujadab90 (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per Mushy Yank. Behappyyar (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out the sources which show the notability? Saying "per...." is not a valid argument. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. LarryL33k (Contribz) 04:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CR (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Collares

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

All sources are unreliable or don't demonstrate notability. GNG is not met. Skyshiftertalk 14:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete: no indication of notability.~~ Anktjha (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC) sock Girth Summit _(blether) 12:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator should explain why the references are unreliable. Several seem to be mainstream news media. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The few "mainstream" ones do not give significant coverage while the other ones are merely blogs. Skyshiftertalk 20:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help in Suffering

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

Promotional, contested draft that does not appear to meet N:ORG from independent reliable sources. Bringing it here for consensus. Star Mississippi 13:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, Companies, Medicine, and India. Star Mississippi 13:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra Tripathi

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

Lack sig cov. Fails GNG, was previously deleted (month ago) and created by a new user which may be for promotion. TheSlumPanda (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Nepal. TheSlumPanda (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Richardson (footballer)

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

Doesn't appear to have played in a competitive fixture for a fully professional team yet. Uhooep (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Uhooep (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are in the Shadow of a Distant Fire

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

This was moved into Draft space as it has no references, and then it was moved back into article space without any references or citations being added. This is nominated for deletion per WP:DBLDRAFT. FULBERT (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Mito HollyHock season

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

similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Roasso Kumamoto season and other J2 League club season articles, all of which are unsourced, underdeveloped and overall just a mess. no evidence of notability either, but if there is good coverage and an editor willing to develop the article, they may as well start from scratch. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Japan. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – For the similars AfD. Svartner (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waterside hot water hay pellet furnace

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

Interesting idea which received some news coverage and a grant of 100k, but I don't see any evidence that it was picked up by any companies/organizations/entities, or even individual people. All the coverage I can find dates back to 2010-2012. No lasting impact. P.S. sorry about 'indiscernible' category, not sure if this falls under product or technology? InsomniaOpossum (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be merged into Central_heating#Types_of_central_heating. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:54, 23 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) 06:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge (as in, one or two sentences) to Pellet boiler (Central heating, as suggested above is too broad for such specific examples). There seems to have been no WP:SUSTAINED coverage following the brief one-off notice taken by the papers. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 12:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SepPure Technologies

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

This does not meet notability guidelines for WP:NORG as all sources reviewed are press releases and primary sources closely related to the organization. Only a few give minor coverage and those are insignificant to meet WP:GNG and or WP:NBASIC. Mekomo (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Singapore, and Canada. Mekomo (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These are Press Releases [22] and [23] . Others seems company's announcements. Bakhtar40 (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think editing rather than deleting would make the most sense. The company seems to have coverage on credible outlets like Yahoo Finance, Associated Press, SME Magazine, and more. Aziza553311 (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to gain more comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr vulpes (Talk) 11:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DeepSeek (chatbot)

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

Requesting that this be redirected to DeepSeek which was created since November 2024. That version is more detailed than this. Mekomo (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I lean keep. I think it makes sense to have separate articles for the company and the product, just like we have for OpenAI and ChatGPT and for Anthropic and Claude (language model). The company DeepSeek does more than just produce a chatbot app, so I think it's probably a good idea to have two separate articles — one about the company, and one containing more detailed information about one of its main products. There's currently a lot of overlap in the two articles' scope and there's definitely cleanup that needs to be done, but the article was only created a few hours ago so I don't see why we shouldn't give time to fix those issues. MCE89 (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:MCE89's reasoning. If not kept, at least merge in to DeepSeek. Sushidude21! (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MCE89. I created a separate article on the chatbot because it gained notability to warrant a separate article. also said on edit summary "Note: I'm not creating a duplicate article. You can make this article's words different then the DeepSeek article's words." And you're nominating for "duplication". RealStranger43286 (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Rhoton

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

Sources in this article do not show that this sales and marketing executive is eligible for an article. The maximum number of mentions of the subject in all sources reviewed are just twice in each; he is mostly mentioned once in many of the sources. Mekomo (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Mekomo (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electronics Mart India Limited

AfDs for this article:

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Andhra Pradesh. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr vulpes (Talk) 10:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 10:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mantri Developers

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Karnataka. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 10:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Zamari Ghani

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

Sources in this article do not show that its subject is ready for an article. The sources are about a different popular politician that has a similar family name with the subject of this article. Mekomo (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Afghanistan. Mekomo (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Baid

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

Non-notable entrepreneur. Lacks direct and in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Canada, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Kavanagh (entrepreneur)

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

Non-notable entrepreneur. Lacks direct and in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheesur cartel scare

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

An article about how Twitter users thought an online streamer had been kidnapped last November, but two days later it turned out that he hadn't been. News coverage is superficial repetition of the Twitter activity and the story had no lasting impact, it looks like a small piece of routine celebrity/viral news below the level of WP:EVENTCRIT. Subject does not appear to be independently notable. Belbury (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Internet. Belbury (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Money

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Routine funding announcements, or regurgitated press releases which comes under WP:CORPTRIV. Neeraj Baid, Patrick Kavanagh (entrepreneur), and this article were recently created to promote subjects on Wikipedia. WP:ILLCON is also not enough to confer notability.

In November 2024, this company was acquired by Deel so I don't mind a redirect to parent company. Gheus (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested redirect to Deel seems reasonable. There's a bit of RS coverage of them complaining about getting blocked from Wise [24] [25] but everything else is just regurgitated press releases or coverage in WP:TRADES fintech publications. It seems a long way off meeting WP:NCORP on its own, so adding a sentence mentioning the acquisition to Deel and redirecting there makes sense to me. MCE89 (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tashrique Goldman

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Searches turn up stats pages. Otherwise the few sources available are brief mentions related to transfers, sometimes not even providing detail beyond first and last name, such as [26] or [27]. C 679 09:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Africa. C 679 09:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 09:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryohei Nishiwaki

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

Getting mere minutes of playtime in the Japanese leagues 25 years ago is not a strong claim to notability. The page would need significant and independent coverage about him as a footballer to meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. The Japanese Wikipedia article contains one independent piece, which details criminal behaviour and a ban from coaching, maybe it’s better to let the WP:BLP go to rest per. Geschichte (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoto Kamiya

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

Only played 777 minutes in Japan's third league, which is not a good claim to notability. Source eval: Gekisaka 1 and Soccer King are WP:ROUTINE, Nikkan Sports is a mention in a long list of names. Gekisaka 2 is better but more about his brother. Geschichte (talk) 08:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Fonseca (footballer, born 1993)

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

Unable to locate significant coverage of this individual. Searching turns up stats farms and namesakes, without any detailed information from independent sources. C 679 08:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. C 679 08:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 08:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per WP:HEY. I added sources that demonstrate WP:SIGCOV, the player has relevant spells with several intermediate Brazilian football clubs such as Joinville EC, SER Caxias and Ypiranga FC. Svartner (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Despite recent expansion by Svartner, in my view, most of the additional sources are transfer reports and contract renewal. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added more recent transfer sources, but most of them provide a summary of the player's career in addition to all the relevant information to establish WP:GNG. I don't see any gaps missing. Svartner (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nargiz Absalamova

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

Fails WP:N and WP:1E. The person has not been the subject of any reliable source on her own and has not got significiant coverage in any reliable source. She herself has not been of interest to any reliable source individually. The person only has name mentions or notes about some facts related to her arrest in the sources. There is no other information available to use in the writing of a balanced biography. As you can see from the article, most of the content is facts about the arrest. Participating in an event or being one of the individuals affected by it does not make a person notable. She is simply one of the individuals listed in the context of the case. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hökümətin sözü ilə, gəlib burda məqalə silməyə çalışmağınız sizin özünüz üçün acınacaqlıdır. Bəlkə də, sizi inandırıblar ki, hansısa mistik informasiya müharibəsi ilə məşğul olursunuz özünüzü önəmli hiss etməyiniz üçün. Amma Nərgizin biosun bir daha oxuyun bəlkə də sizinlə yaxın-yaxın yaşda etdiklərinə baxın və bir də özünüzə baxın. Cəsarət, dünyada təqlid edilməyən yeganə şeydi))))

I strongly disagree with the assertion that Nargiz Absalamova fails Wikipedia’s notability criteria (WP:N, WP:1E). The argument that she has only been briefly mentioned in sources without significant independent coverage is misleading and inaccurate. Multiple reputable, independent sources, including international human rights organizations and well-established media outlets, have reported on Nargiz Absalamova. Her case has been documented as part of a larger crackdown on Azerbaijani civil society, demonstrating that she is not just an incidental figure but a recognized political prisoner. The idea that she is “simply one of the individuals listed in a case” ignores the fact that many notable political prisoners worldwide have been recognized in similar circumstances.

WP:1E does not apply to cases of political repression that are part of an ongoing human rights crisis. There are multiple precedents on Wikipedia where political prisoners and persecuted activists—arrested in crackdowns—have notability established through human rights reports and international coverage. If Wikipedia hosts similar biographies of other Azerbaijani political prisoners, removing this one would be inconsistent and unfair.

I also want to highlight concerning patterns in the behavior of the editor opposing this article, which may indicate a conflict of interest (COI) or agenda-driven editing. There have been frequent removals or attempts to undermine content related to Azerbaijani political prisoners, edits that systematically favor the Azerbaijani government’s narrative while dismissing reliable independent sources, and targeted efforts to delete information about human rights abuses in Azerbaijan. Wikipedia’s mission is to ensure neutrality and reliable documentation—it should not be used to erase politically inconvenient subjects at the request of authoritarian regimes.

I encourage all editors to review the reliable sources available before making broad claims about notability. If necessary, I will request an administrator review this editor’s activity for potential bias or government-aligned influence. I am also open to further expanding the article with additional sources to ensure it meets Wikipedia’s standards. It is crucial that Wikipedia remains a platform for factual, independent knowledge and does not become a tool for state propaganda or information suppression. I welcome further discussion, but I urge all editors to act in good faith and according to Wikipedia’s core principles. Kromvell 1968 (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with the deletion. Nargiz Absalamova is a notable Azerbaijani journalist whose work and subsequent persecution have received significant international attention, meeting Wikipedia’s notability criteria.

Professional Contributions: As a journalist with Abzas Media, one of Azerbaijan’s few independent outlets, Absalamova has played a key role in reporting on critical issues such as environmental protests and corruption. Her investigative work has provided essential insights into topics often underreported in the region.

International Recognition and Coverage: Absalamova's arrest in December 2023, widely regarded as politically motivated, has been condemned by major international organizations. Amnesty International has highlighted her detention as part of a broader crackdown on dissent in Azerbaijan, and the Committee to Protect Journalists has reported on her case, emphasizing the silencing of independent media voices. Such coverage demonstrates her impact and the broader significance of her work.

Alignment with Wikipedia’s Notability Criteria: According to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, a topic merits an article if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Absalamova's work and the international response to her arrest have been documented by reputable organizations and news outlets, affirming her notability. WP:GNG

Furthermore, Wikipedia's notability criteria for journalists state that individuals who are main personalities at notable news sources or have received significant coverage for their work meet the standards for inclusion. Absalamova's role at Abzas Media and the international attention her situation has attracted clearly satisfy these criteria.

Recently, I have observed multiple deletion nominations targeting independent Azerbaijani journalists who have been arrested. This raises concerns about potential politically motivated attempts to remove their presence from public discourse. Wikipedia's mission is to document notable individuals and events objectively, and erasing articles on persecuted journalists undermines that goal. Maintaining Absalamova’s article ensures that Wikipedia remains a comprehensive and balanced resource. Aspectreishauntingeurope (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Isabelle of Salm-Salm

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

Nominated on behalf of 46.132.74.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I contested this editor's WP:PROD nomination, and they then asked on my talk page how, as an unregistered user, they could start an AfD nomination. Their PROD rationale was The article was already deleted once over concerns of notability, and although this version is longer, it is still mostly unsourced and includes nothing that would make the topic obviously notable. I will give my own opinion separately. Jfire (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. Jfire (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article appears to be a translation of de:Isabelle Gräfin von Loë. The best sources I have located appear to be:

Gies, Gabi (2009-01-14). "Ein bewegtes Leben". Neue Ruhr Zeitung (in German). Retrieved 2025-01-20.
"Gräfin Isabelle von Loe - Schloss Wissen". Blattus Martini - Kevelaerer Enzyclopädie. Retrieved 2025-01-20.

The first is a biography in a regional newspaper. The second appears to be a reprint from a biographical dictionary (Kevelaerer Persönlichkeiten by Evers and Willing). This is somewhat suggestive that a more thorough search could locate enough RS coverage to meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, although I'm not sure it's enough on its own. I mainly contested the PROD because the tag had previously been removed by another user, and because the article had been recreated after a prior PROD deletion. Jfire (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can see why someone might think Wikipedia should have an article on this person, since she lived a pretty impressive life. However, I can't find any sources (aside from a few passing mentions) other than the two Jfire has already identified, and I would say they are definitely not sufficient to establish notability. Tserton (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems that this article just needs to be improved by including more sources, she certainly did enough to warrant notability as another user mentioned. I do think that the wording and flow needs to be improved, but that's another topic. Perhaps just add the relevant banners instead of requesting deletion. Just the fact that "she was the longest lived royal European centenarian to have ever lived" makes me think that some more effort should be put in to save it. If there's a source for that, I don't see how it wouldn't meet the relevant standards. Laurelius (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it certainly needs work, but based on what is in there and sourced, and her extremely long life, she's easily notable. Bearian (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cut out some fluffy language and added some royal connections like Marie Antoinette, the headless queen who was her distant-great-aunt. Bearian (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am very uncertain about this one. I think she would need to meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, as she doesn't meet any WP:SNG. So, has there been significant coverage about her in reliable, secondary sources? The first source in this article apparently "describes in passing" some activities the author of that source undertook with her. That doesn't sound like significant coverage. The two sources that Jfire found are as much about her family and the castle as about her, and don't go into detail about her wartime activities, and they are also both very local. In the past, when articles about centenarians were brought to AfD, they were usually deleted unless there was significant, non-local coverage (so not just the local newspaper covering their 90th, 100th and 110th birthdays, for example), or if they met WP:ANYBIO. Examples of AfDs where the result was Keep are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edna Parker (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Lockett. I haven't found much here, although there was a paragraph about her in The Tatler [28] (included in the article Salm-Salm). I have found a source about her donating land to the German War Graves Commission [29], but that isn't significant coverage, it just confirms content in the article. I have tried to search in digitised German newspapers, and found only a notice of her husband's death and some social notes. I tend to think there is not enough to keep this in English Wikipedia. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had a feeling someone would bring up the Tatler article. To spare people a click, it's a listicle that might well have been sourced from Wikipedia. 46.132.74.112 (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as female figure. To the listed pages noting her passing there is also coverage: Für viele war sie eine zweite Mutter (German) in local journal Kevelaerer Blatt. Axisstroke (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but...that article is one of precisely two sources in existence that aren't passing mentions. Tserton (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Shetty

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

Declined A7. Lesser-known Indian cinematographer. Subject does not appear to be notable enough for a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stass Shpanin

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominate this article since it is a resume without much to highlight. On top of that it has no significant and reliable references AgusTates (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Azerbaijan, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is about the best article I've found about him but it's all based on interview. This would be better if it wasn't from his own institution. He doesn't meet any of the WP:NPROF factors and I don't see that he meets any of the WP:NARTIST factors either. Oblivy (talk) 05:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: It's not even so much that this WP:RESUME is about someone who utterly fails WP:BIO or any other notability criteria, or that this is very nearly a speedy candidate for failure to assert any valid ground for notability. It's that this relative nonentity had an article recreated by the SPA. Ravenswing 14:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WNGN-LD

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

Non-notable LPTV which may well be silent. Only sources are RabbitEars and the FCC. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and New York. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in New York (state)#LPTV stations: as the creator of this article all the way back in 2006, I can assure you this is little more than a remnant article of the far lower, non-GNG-based inclusion standards of the era. Maybe there's something out there that could instead merit a mention somehow at WNGN (FM) (the co-owned radio station), but a history of mostly national services (or more recently, airing nothing but a random .4 carriage of the radio side) does not exactly suggest significant coverage. (What's left of Google's newspaper archive does have two articles in The Daily Gazette mentioning this station, which is more than some other LPTVs, but I don't think they're enough — even if the first article mentions the then-existence of local programming without elaboration.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 28 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) 04:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Viraj Bahl

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG as the sources mainly focus on the subject interviews and statements, without providing significant coverage. Majority of cited sources focus on Viraj Bahl company growth (revenue & product launches) rather than his personal notability as an individual. Refs (India.com, TimesNowNews, DNA India) lack depth or are promotional in tone. Coverage in outlets ( Inc42 and ET Retail ) primarily discuss Veeba as a company, not Viraj Bahl individual legacy or influence beyond his role as founder. While his role as a judge on Shark Tank India(2024) adds to his public profile, this is recent and may not yet be supported by independent sourcing to confirm lasting notability failing WP:NBLP and many of the sources here are exactly what WP:NEWSORGINDIA tells us to watchout for. NXcrypto Message 04:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Business, Companies, Singapore, and India. NXcrypto Message 04:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Red Cord Records

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:ADVERT. Repeatedly created non-notable, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP failing run of the mill company. Graywalls (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Business, Companies, United States of America, and Illinois. Graywalls (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OnFaith

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

Website that does not claim or show any independent notability or coverage. Website currently does not load. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 01:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 01:48, 28 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 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The WaPo, CNA and Austin American-Statesman coverage would all generally qualify as WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS, and NCORP does not have a WP:SUSTAINED requirement (unlike WP:NEVENTS or WP:NPRODUCT). However, all of these sources were published in a blitz of coverage around OnFaith's launch and I don't see any continuing coverage. As a flash in the pan company without any apparent lasting coverage beyond its launch, I'd lean delete, but I think a letter-of-the-law application of NCORP would allow a keep !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This seems like a start up that got a little bit of funding but never really got going, and I suspect part of the reason it got a blitz of media coverage is that the idea of tech products centred around religion is still just a bit of a novelty to most people. I think Dclemens1971 is probably right that the coverage might strictly speaking be enough to pass WP:NCORP, but so much of it is focused on the idea rather than on the company that I'm not sure it really passes the spirit of NCORP. For instance, I can't find a single source covering the fact that the company rebranded or the fact that it shut down, or any sources about its actual operations or userbase. MCE89 (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ixopo High School

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

Unsourced since 2014. I was able to find one source which dedicates a sentence to the school in passing, and several which mention it as part of Alan Paton's biography, but nothing which adds up anything close to notability. Rusalkii (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and South Africa. Rusalkii (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Even if the topic is notable (Zulu is the dominant language in KwaZulu-Natal, so better sources might exist in that language), the current article so severely fails verifiability that it would be better to blow it up and start over. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 20:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of verifiability. -Samoht27 (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instlux

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

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. The only reasonable source I could find has just a brief paragraph that was written when the program was still in development, so it isn't really significant coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability whatsoever. Brandon (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Nautica Malone

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}}.

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

After being previously declined at AfC for lack of notability/WP:NOTNEWS/WP:ONEEVENT issues, the situation made its way to the mainspace anyway.

Sources cited are largely unreliable: Usual offenders like Hindustan Times, The Mirror, TMZ and Twitter.

Notability remains the chief issue here. Knowing the shelf-life of memetic personalities, I doubt that this person will pass the ten year test. Is it really notable that Malone did what he did and then killed himself?

Finally, I have concern that this has become an joke article for folks to chronicle the lulz of the gooner who killed himself, which is not what WP is for. Encyclopedia Dramatica is still hosted somewhere. Bkissin (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, cus if RS hadn’t covered it when it was new they are not liable to cover it now. No longevity, as indicated by the fact this topic has passed out of the non-RS sphere and into the hands of WP:NOTHERE shitposters. ‒overthrows 04:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Indian. How is Hindustan Times an unreliable source? Genuine question. I don't read it anymore btw DatChernobylGuy (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a view among some editors that, while Indian media can be reliable, it is also rife with paid articles and undisclosed conflicts of interest. You can look at the "consensus" view at WP:NEWSORGINDIA which doesn't say all Indian media is unreliable (although paid/advertorial sections are called out, including Hindustan times), but rather says to be on alert. That subtlety is often lost at AfD debates. That this is a non-India news subject (as opposed to an Indian celeb or high-flyer) suggests those concerns shouldn't apply here. Oblivy (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS (3OpenEyes' communication receptacle) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 11:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless an academical publishing will take anything involved into consideration, the page has no value of being featured. 𝙲𝚊𝚌𝚝𝚞𝚜 𝚁𝚘𝚗𝚒𝚗 (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think this page has just become more of a meme then a real article. If it stays in the news cycle for a while, it should stay, but for now, it feels closer to a Know Your Meme article than a Wikipedia article. Lucasofsunshine (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nah this is gooning history. Page should def stay up Ndncc (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This does not make any sense. 𝙲𝚊𝚌𝚝𝚞𝚜 𝚁𝚘𝚗𝚒𝚗 (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gooning is Gooning Shiba986 (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Internet, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first ever goonicide in history. There will be more to come, attested by the fact that more and more teenagers are getting addicted to porn everyday. We need this article to stay up, so we have a history of how it first started. Wikipedia should never start behind the curve, this is our niche, making goonicide articles. Dragonthereal (talk) 05:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The editorial issue here is akin to WP:CRIME and the need to avoid either glorifying or publicly shaming (depending on your point of view) crime victims and crime perpetrators. Exposing one's genitals certainly is a crime in AZ. Death by suicide may or may not be a crime, but this article breaks virtually all best practices with respect to reporting on suicide - sensationalizing, describing method, describing suicide note, etc. Wikipedia can do better than this.
I don't find arguments like TOOSOON, CRYSTAL, and NOTNEWS helpful at AfD debates, since there's almost always "one more article" just after the AfD is brought, or some argument about expected lasting impact. But the chances the unfortunate end of this gentleman's life will lead to sustained notability (other than in some niche group) seems pretty minimal.
Claims of non-RS are not substantiated - it's supported by the Root and TMZ, neither of which are non-RS (TMZ is questioned but no consensus). Oblivy (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THE PAGE UP VenomShades (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E jolielover♥talk 09:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Want to comment that there is currently a tweet with 1.2 million views featuring the page, hence the SPAs. jolielover♥talk 15:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although I get the « it’s more of a Know Your Meme page » argument, I think this one has much more real life implications than other memes : from the suicide itself to the gathering that followed this episode, hence why I think it may be worth of a WP page. Th14cf (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laura, Indiana

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

Back-added to GNIS from a state highway map, and can we have some substantial information please? It's another blank spot on the map and it's late for a 4th class PO, but other than Baker I have nothing else on this. Mangoe (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Baker says a village founded in 1897, which is going to rule out almost all 19th century sources and start hitting the copyright wall on information. There's one third of a 1916 Lippincott's at Lippincott's new gazetteer at the Internet Archive but neither of its two "Laura"s are this. The same goes for the 1906 Lippincott's new gazetteer at the Internet Archive.
The Lewis Publishing 1899 Biographical History of Tippecanoe, White, Jasper, Newton, Benton, Warren and Pulaski Counties, Indiana (I checked volumes 1 and 2.) hits the right county and timeframe, and has lots of wives and daughters named Laura, but no places. The same goes for Darroch's 1916 A standard history of Jasper and Newton counties, Indiana at the Internet Archive.
However, if someone wants to write about The Onion Belt otherwise formally known as the Chicago & Wabash Valley Railroad, owner one Benjamin J. Gifford (after whom Gifford, Indiana is named), you'll find Laura as a dot on a railway station diagram, but no prose about it, in Elmer Griffith Sulzer's Ghost Railroads of Indiana (IUP, 1998, ISBN 9780253334831). There's plenty to say about The Onion Belt, and contrary to list of unused railways Sulzer documents how it was used; for shipping onions, no less.
All of the other false "unincorporated communities" at Moody, Indiana, Gifford, Indiana, and McCoysburg, Indiana are all railway stops on the diagram, and in prose Sulzer explains that our Asphaltum, Indiana article should correctly be titled Crescent, Indiana because it changed name, before it died.
Uncle G (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forest City, Indiana

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

I have to wonder exactly what is in the "WPA files" to which Baker refers (and for that matter, what sources they used), as other than the spot on the map (which sat next to a NYC line and seems to consist of a single house in the trees) I can find no trace of this place. I get lots of hits, as Lippicott's for instance lists something like a dozen different "Forest City"s, but they are all in other states. Maybe this was a rail spot, but I just get nothing. Mangoe (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An 1893 Rand McNally gazetteer says "Forest City, Jasper, N.W., Ry"; which translates to a railway stop, with no post office nor express office, in the north-west of Jasper county. Checking Graydon M. Meints's Indiana Railroad Lines (IUP, 2011, ISBN 9780253223593) confirms that this was a stop on the "LS-WK", which from another table in the book is the Kankakee, Indiana branch of the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway.
I can only turn up this meagre information about the railway station, everything else being the other "Forest City"s. The 1869 Lippincott's has 5 of them, none this one. By 1893, Lippincott's has 14 of them, still none this one. So: late 19th century railway station.
The "WPA files" are, as Baker explains at the end of the book, the "Manuscript Files of the Federal Writers' Project, Cunningham Memorial Library, Indiana State University, Terre Haute", the history of which is explained by R. K. O’Neill here; so that's where one would have to look.
Uncle G (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know what the WPA files are; it's their content and sourcing that it would be nice to see. I am not in a position to go to Terre Haute and rummage through them. Mangoe (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt, Indiana

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

I find no evidence that there was an Egypt-town to attach the cemetery to; all hits I get are for the cemetery itself, including all three hits in the county history. Mangoe (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only 2 hits in the Lewis and Darroch history. The third one is in Carpenter Township. So I have even less than in the nomination. ☺ It was somewhat tricky to search the gazetteers when the names are "Egypt" and "Jordan" and "Welsh", but nothing turned up for them in Jasper County. And the source purported to support most of this has vanished. The Indiana Genealogical Society does not publish it nor even list it any more.
One wonders why, apparently source in hand saying that this is a cemetery, article writers still believe that a cemetery is a populated place and a community. Exactly what sort of cemetery is that? Anyway, this one is pretty much undocumented, the only locatable source (Lewis and Darroch) not actually discussing it itself and the set of personal handwritten notes claimed to document it no longer findable or possibly even in existence.
Uncle G (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chitty Bang Bang (airship)

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

A film prop that does not appear to have stand-alone notability. BEFORE does not help much; it is a prop, it existed for a short while, and its history is briefly described in some works about the film (WP:SIGCOV is a major issue here). At best this could be merged to the film it was a prop for (Chitty Chitty Bang Bang). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Transportation, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of its connection to the film, this is a technically important vessel as the first helium-filled airship built outside the US. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

USOS Seaview

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

Another fictional ship (submarine). Very long plot summary with WP:FANCRUFTy geeking out about technical specifications, very poorly referenced creation/design section, short unreferenced section about model kits. This fails WP:GNG badly; and my WP:BEFORE shows nothing but plot summaries of the movie it appeared in, or a later TV show. Per WP:ATD-R, we could redirect this to the movie (Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Military, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

USS Tiger Shark

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

Fictional submarine, stub with very little content. Fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE gives nothing useful. This is so bad I was just going to PROD it, but apparently, it was PRODed before (by User:Brad101), then converted into a disambig that grew into a poor stub. There is no valid redirect target, and I am not convinced converting it back to a disambig makes sense since there is not a single notable "USS Tiger Shark"; it is just the name of a fictional ship that appeared in several unrelated works. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Military, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to disambiguation - while it's true that none of these fictional vessels are notable, page information shows 332 hits in the last 30 days - it is a valid search term for people looking for a ship by this name. Having no page won't tell them there is no real ship by this name - a dab page of the fictional ships will. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Sword

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

Fictional submarine form Verne's work, but much less famous than his notable Nautilus. The article is a poorly referenced plot summary and my WP:BEFORE fails to find anything else. Per WP:ATD-R, we can redirect it to the notable work this appears in (Facing the Flag). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Military, and France. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You do have one bit of real-world almost-usage of that name. That would be a priority to merge if that's the outcome. As a rule, single-appearance fictional elements need to be extraordinary to defeat NOPAGE even if notable. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deer Park, Indiana

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

As far as I can determine from the aerials, this is subdivision from the late 1950s; it's certainly all there is now, and I got no useful Ghits (Deer Park is not quite as common as Springfield but...). Mangoe (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have come up completely empty on this. No sources at all. And none in the article. Nothing in relation to DeMotte. Nothing in any histories. Nothing in any gazetteer except the one that we know to be faulty. This is unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joby Sanchez

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

Athlete no longer meets WP:NMMA and doesn't meet GNG, as most of his refs are passing mentions of scheduled bouts. Nswix (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and New Mexico. Nswix (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Hernandez (lawyer)

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

Lawyer article without a claim to notability. Note that the article did cite some articles in the past[30] that included local Victoria TX media quoting this gentleman. On my reading nothing other than a local top lawyer award and quotes from him about his clients and cases, which seem non-notable (and if the cases/clients were notable any effect would be inherited at best). Oblivy (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Texas. Oblivy (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The name is too common to find anything for this person. There's a real estate lawyer that comes up with the same name, not much of anything for this person. The one source used now in the article isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's not too hard to find - here are NY attorney pages for him,[31][32]. And as I noted above there's an earlier revision of the article that has more citations. IMHO, none of it helps show notability but I'm open to arguments to the contrary. Oblivy (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean having a license is the bare minimum needed for a lawyer, I'm looking at SIGCOV items, not registrations. Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In one of the lines he mentions that he is known for carrying out lawsuits for compensation, however there is no encyclopedia source that supports such a mention. AgusTates (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few press releases [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] and a handful of mentions in articles about cases he's worked on, but nothing usable. I wondered whether his unsuccesful election candidacy might allow for a redirect, but he's not mentioned in 2012 Texas House of Representatives election or Texas's 30th House of Representatives district. MCE89 (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]