Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

21 February 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 20	February 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Jean Brismée

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

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

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

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

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

Runnings

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mortar (organization)

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mast303 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bosavi woolly rat

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

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

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

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

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

Keep: Passes WP:GNG from the BBC, CNN and Smithsonian articles, and while it has no official name from taxonomists yet, I suspect that is simply because it was discovered so recently. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 21:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2009 is not so recently. Plenty of mammals have been discovered, named, published, and catalogued since then. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NSPECIES, without a described name, this is just a pipedream. I could see draftify as an WP:ATD and WP:TOOSOON. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While this is certainly worth mentioning at the genus article, I see no purpose in giving it a dedicated article until it has a name and/or a listing in a taxonomically reliable source such as the IUCN or ASM (although the latter would tend to imply the former). Until then, we don't even really have any good evidence that there's anything to report, rather than that somebody once thought that there might be. If that changes, we can revisit it then... until then, the genus article is the best place for this and any other unnamed species. Anaxial (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep on the basis that, while this fails WP:NSPECIES, we've got coverage from the Smithsonian[1], the Guardian[2], the Nature Conservancy[3], the BBC[4], CBC[5], etc, along with several mentions in scientific publications... You can argue that it's WP:TOOSOON, but with this level of coverage I have to disagree, and I don't see much use in deleting this article when all we are waiting on is a published description and an ICZN compliant name. This is the absolute best case scenario for an article on an undescribed species: reliably documented (clear photo and video evidence from a reputable source to support its existence) with good news coverage and a likely genus placement. NSPECIES should not be interpreted as putting a kibosh on all articles on species not yet described (that was clearly not the intention behind the guideline), but rather, as a reflection of the community practice of giving all described species the presumption of notability. At the absolute least, the information in this article should be preserved in the Mallomys article (though in my opinion this is not to the benefit of the Mallomys article, especially given that the placement in Mallomys is not yet confirmed). I just can't say I see any benefit to the encyclopedia in deleting this. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if the generic placement was uncontroversial I'd agree with merging it to Mallomys, but with it unconfirmed I'm a very weak keep. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically all of the coverage is from the same few days in September 2009 though, over 15 years ago now. There's no evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage (charity websites don't count), required for having Wikipedia articles on a topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense that an animal that has only been seen once due to its prescence in a remote area will attract the vast majority of its detailed coverage in relation to that initial discovery, but there are later mentions of this animal. Hopefully these links work, I absolutely loathe trying to link pages on Google Books/the Internet Archive but it's the best I can do... Most recently, a 2025 memoir by Gordon Buchanan, one of the members of the documentary crew, discusses it[6], and it's also mentioned several times in one of Steve Backshall's books from 2011[7]. It's also discussed in this 2013 book on extinction published by the Natural History Museum[8], this 2019 book on the Smithsonian published by the University of Georgia[9], and extremely briefly in a 2022 book on live mammal trapping[10] and a 2011 book on zoo management published by Wiley[11]. This is just what I could find through my limited online research tools, I imagine there are things I've missed. In 2021 it appears someone even published a children's picture book based on it[12]! Not terribly relevant to notability, but an interesting thing I found during my research and wanted to share, I thought it was very cute :P

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord Buddha International Cricket Stadium

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

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

Draftify – WP:TOOSOON, but there is something about the construction [13], [14], [15]. Svartner (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this was, as the article states, formerly known as Gautam Buddha International Cricket Stadium, isn't this a page move once the name changes? Until then deletion seems the best option - we could look at redirect but we'll eventually need a move over redirect going on if we do that... Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Broad Park, Indiana

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

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

David Greuner

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 02:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ptenothrix Species 3

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Play! Pokémon

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Aurora, Illinois mayoral election

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Illinois. SecretName101 (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Alton mayoral election

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

Falls well below Wikipedia’s notability standards.

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Illinois. SecretName101 (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mala Kladuša offensive

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

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

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

Yorkshire Grey, Fitzrovia

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

This article doesn't seem to meet GNG. I could not find any reliable 3rd party sources discussing the subject except for a brief mention about how JB Priestley used to visit it. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 12:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Architecture, Companies, Geography, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And Ezra Pound, until you read sources like Brooker 2004, p. 42 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBrooker2004 (help) who explain that xe probably did not drink at that pub, merely lived next to it. Other than that, I kept turning up architecture books talking about a quite different building of this name designed by James William Brooker. Uncle G (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Brooker, Peter (2004). Bohemia in London: The Social Scene of Early Modernism. Springer. ISBN 9780230288096.
Merge to The Yorkshire Grey, where it is already named but has no additional info. A search of digitised newspapers and Google Books only shows ads for the pub, employment ads, or reports of meetings, inquests and other events that happened there. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

TEXEL

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hayes Greenfield

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, and New York. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am finding and adding coverage from digitised newspapers, etc. I'll come back to !vote when I've done more. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. I have added sources to the article. I do know that we don't want 7 refs after one sentence - I'll come back and add more information from those refs, and spread them out. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources added seem to support notability for a program, as opposed to the person themselves from my perspective. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now added sources and info. There are 9 reviews of his albums and 4 articles about his jazz education program, so I think he is clearly notable. There are other reviews I don't have access to (eg in Jazz Improv NY [16]) and a couple more sources I've found and might add. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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