Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 18	January 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Sui-Turkic war

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

This seems to me, based on the lack of available sources and a look at a translation of the primary sources offered, to be a set of skirmishes, minor invasions, and on and off bickering rather than an actual "war" per se. I do not believe this subject is notable based on my WP:BEFORE search. Some of the battles individually might be, but again, I don't thing the "Sui-Turkic war" is a discrete topic in-and-of-itself. Cremastra (u — c) 16:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Asia, China, and Central Asia. Cremastra (u — c) 16:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning merge. I think it would have been appropriate for the nom to have dropped a link to this revision, one diff prior to their own gutting of uncited content comprising the majority of the prose. For clarity, this is the version I would support merging into related articles: the article at the diff of nomination adds essentially nothing to either Sui dynasty § Foundation and Emperor Wen or First Turkic Khaganate § Civil war.
I haven't yet done a BEFORE, so no comment on notability yet. Whether or not this topic can be construed as a "war" may come down to a translation issue, but this is the English Wikipedia so our word for "war" obviously takes precedence.
The main thing I'm actually commenting to note is that none of the (WP:GENREF) sources given are actually Primary sources. There are two modern sources named only in translation – which will add difficulty in locating them – but obviously secondary sources even given the translation of their titles. There are a further two secondary sources which happen to be pretty old. Both Book of Sui and Zizhi Tongjian were compiled by professional historians from extant primary and secondary sources at their disposal. Zizhi Tongjian in particular is extraordinarily reputable and may even be considered a tertiary source, but that's a point I don't want to argue.
Additionally, if these are the two sources being consulted in translation, I can attest that machine translation of Classical Chinese (and even modern Chinese written in a more old-school style) is still real bad, with its major problems including word boundaries, grammatical functions, abbreviated referents, and proper nouns.
Anyway, still no strong opinion here as I haven't put in the work to inform myself, so I don't know yet whether or not this nomination is appropriate (although an absence of sister language articles is not a positive omen), but the process of nomination in this particular case looks flawed to me personally. Folly Mox (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the significant coverage in reliable sources on the topic, including various pages in The Military History in Sui, Tang and Five Dynasties; or see https://doaj.org/article/d4cdaacd051b42099ce82e79374c94d4; Warfare in Inner Asian History (500-1800). (2018), p. 61 and Graff, D. (2003), Medieval Chinese Warfare 300-900 Taylor & Francis (pp. 13, 142, 144, 146, 155, 157, 176). Etc. -Mushy Yank. 22:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming the page Military confrontations between the Sui Dynasty and the Turks might suffice to address the nominator's concern because the topic seems notable enough for an entry. -Mushy Yank. 22:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JEL classification code

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

I don't see this as passing WP:NOTABLE because we require in depth and secondary sources even though other journals use this categorical system. The references and external links all point to the publisher's website except for one. Logoshimpo (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—a quick Google Scholar search finds plenty of hits. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked the other references beyond the first hit but the first hit is written by the publisher. I also note that you moved the page to its current target per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) incorrectly. Logoshimpo (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked the other references beyond the first hit
The first one is published in the Journal of Economic Literature (one of the top-3 journals in economics along with AER and Econometrica), but is not written by JEL—it's a paper describing the use of JEL in metascience. The second, third, fourth, and fifth hits aren't published in JEL. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's entertain the idea that among the 5 references: there is significant coverage. But they discuss different topics related to the codes. Logoshimpo (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly what one would expect from a highly notable topic worthy of an encyclopedia article. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As CLC says, there is abundant significant coverage in reliable sources: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] took two minutes to find on GScholar. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Toupee

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2006 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. The article is mostly cited to primary sources including interviews. The article does cite reliable reviews, but these only briefly mention the song; there are other RSes (e.g. Pitchfork) that mention the song equally briefly. The content from these sources could be merged into Lincoln (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Palindrome I

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2005 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. This article cites a few reliable sources, but they are mostly about the album and not the song itself; it also cites primary sources that do not establish notability. Although some RSes briefly mention the song (mostly in recaps of concerts), I cannot find any that discuss it in depth. This article should be merged into Apollo 18 (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Man, It's So Loud in Here

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2006 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG. The article is a very short stub that only cites two primary sources. The song did chart, and there are a few RSes that discuss the song (e.g. the ABC); however, none of them have enough coverage for a standalone article. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental Film (song)

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2004 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. This article is mostly cited to primary sources (including an interview), as well as a review of the album. I cannot find any reliable sources that discuss the song in depth. This article should be redirected to The Spine (album), and the adequately sourced content could be merged into that article. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Put Your Hand Inside the Puppet Head

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. The article mostly cites primary sources such as interviews which do not establish notability. The secondary sources cited here only discuss the song briefly, and I cannot find any RSes that discuss the song in-depth. The article is sourced okay, but it does not pass WP:GNG, so it should be merged into They Might Be Giants (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S-E-X-X-Y

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2005 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. The article is a very short stub that only cites two primary sources. RSes only mention the song briefly in recaps of concerts. This should redirect to Factory Showroom. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(She Was A) Hotel Detective

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2004 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. The article mostly cites primary sources such as interviews and does not cite any reliable secondary sources. The article is only briefly covered in RSes (e.g. Pitchfork and this tongue-in-cheek mention by A.V. Club) and does not have enough coverage for an article. This should redirect to They Might Be Giants (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snail Shell (song)

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This song does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. The article cites only one RS, which only mentions the song briefly; the other sources are primary or user-generated. I can only find RSes that mention the song briefly, mostly in recaps of concerts. Article should redirect to John Henry (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Statue Got Me High

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2006 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. The only RSes cited in this article are on chart positions; the other sources are primary or user-generated. Secondary sources only mention the song briefly (e.g. PopMatters). Article should redirect to Apollo 18 (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.32 Remington

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

Tagged for notability for a year. -- Beland (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This was closed as WP:SOFTDELETE yesterday and then undeleted today by request of 71.246.246.28, who said "Cartridge is still in relatively common use and has many published books with at minimum dimensions and pressure specifications to maintain the article. Others can be found for the history of the cartridge and it's origin." (I assume you're fine with this being reopened, @Explicit?) SilverLocust 💬 19:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-32 Remington article is perfectly accurate and a valid, useful summary of the cartridge’s history for collectors and enthusiasts. Let’s not set up factual articles for deletion based on political bias Mr Beland. Please, Wikipedia is an open forum providing factual reference. Period. There’s no reason to delete this article. 53gravely (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilverLocust 💬 19:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Try bidding for ammunition components for this cartridge and you will find that interest is still very high. Thousands of these rifles are cherished by those who still use them and will be for years to come. The information here helps prevent mishaps that can occur because of ignorance of vital dimensional information in the article. 66.116.4.190 (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They'll Need a Crane

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2004 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. The article is a very short stub that only cites recordings of the song. There are some RSes that has non-trivial coverage of the song (A.V. Club and Stereogum), but there is not enough for a standalone article. This should redirect to Lincoln (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seán Ó Catháin

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

Nonnotable Irish scribe --Altenmann >talk 18:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:GNG and WP:NWRITER. While I have found/confirmed/added a number of sources to the article, none deal with the subject in any meaningful depth. To the extent that the only biographical information at all is a somewhat "throw away" comment in a piece by historian Nollaig Ó Muraíle - where he gives a very rough age (60ish) as of 1724. Otherwise the only "claim to fame" is that the subject was involved in transcribing someone else's work. While being able to read/write/copy someone else's work was probably far more significant (in the 1720s) than it might now be in the 21st century, absent other biographical coverage, it isn't enough to meet WP:NWRITER. Which, among other things, expect that someone would have "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant [..] or collective body of work". (Transcribing two works by Seathrún Céitinn isn't a "major role in co-creating a significant [..] body of work"....) Guliolopez (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've soft-deleted the other two but given the additional sources that turned up in this case, I'll relist this one in the hopes there's anything else. Has anyone checked Irish-language sources? Also, the relevant standard for a scribe would be WP:NARTIST.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: mentioned as a "scribe who left a vivid impression of his life and personality" (with analysis of his work, more than 1 page) in The Irish Classical Self: Poets and Poor Scholars in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, also see Galway: History & Society - Page 192; + coverage on the page. Notable and verifiable. More sources exist. Please do better BEFORES when you nominate historical personalities. -Mushy Yank. 16:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Andreen McDonald

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. All coverage is very local, not in depth or analytical, and not over a sustained period of time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines because the subject has been covered by multiple independent, reliable, and non-local sources. While some may argue that the coverage is predominantly local, this claim does not fully reflect the range and scope of the sources cited,Atlanta Black Star,CBS News,Express News,The U.S. Sun and Fox News are definately not local. Although local outlets may have initially reported on the subject, subsequent coverage by nationally and internationally recognized media outlets suggests that the topic has broader significance. This aligns with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which prioritize significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Afrowriter talk 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. Sun is unreliable, CBS News has local branches (which is what the article is citing), Fox News only covered the case when it was a breaking news item in 2019 which does not help notability. Atlanta Black Star is better but still specialized (and further only one source, and the content isn't great to overc ome that), still almost entirely local. Per WP:NEVENT (which is meant to balance the fact that a lot of news is actually considered a WP:PRIMARY source, not counted for notability, without making it wholly unusable), just because something was reported as happening does not make it notable. It doesn't have to have all the aspects that indicate notability for NEVENT, but this is literally none. Further, there isn't enough depth of coverage to compensate for it. There is little to say. All the sources are when the event happened or the trial. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recommend using ChatGPT anywhere on Wikipedia, but it's especially likely to lead you astray in deletion discussions, since ChatGPT has no understanding of wikipedia policy at all. -- asilvering (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not have any lasting notability, barely even got coverage when it happened. Local news coverage, then they've moved on. Even the lawsuit afterwards isn't terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:11, 5 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!} 21:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources are third party and reliable. And as above mentioned not just local media coverage. Found more coverage online. also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BabbaQ How does this pass GNG? All sources are WP:PRIMARYNEWS and this does not pass any aspect of WP:EVENTCRIT. There are no secondary sources here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Gronik

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

This page should be deleted as the person does not seem largely relevant. Searching his name shows a stark lack of coverage after he dropped out of the 2018 Wisconsin gubernatorial election. Additionally, the page itself seems suspect and contains what I read as promotional material and reads as a piece written in support of Gronik, which is backed up by the fact that one of the primary editor to the page had most of their edits labeled with "possible unreferenced addition to BLP" and various instances vandalism and unreferenced BLP edits being reverted. Talthiel (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Happy to be corrected if I'm misunderstanding the relevant notability guideline here, but my understanding is that coverage of an unsuccessful candidate's campaign can still be counted towards WP:GNG even though being an unsuccessful candidate doesn't count towards WP:NPOL. It seems like he got quite a bit of SIGCOV associated with his campaign, going well beyond the kind of passing mentions any random candidate could expect to get ([8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]). Agree that a lot of the material about his business career needs to go as it is promotional and unsourced (although there are some passing mentions of him as a businessman that could be used here), but I think he probably meets WP:GNG based on the coverage associated with him as a candidate. MCE89 (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the election in which he ran - I'm not sure he's otherwise notable, and he can be adequately covered there. The above argument is flawed since if you only receive GNG coverage for being in an election, we cover you on the election page. SportingFlyer T·C 23:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily opposed to this, but looking at the election article this would amount to "Andy Gronik, businessman (still on ballot; endorsed Kelda Roys)" — I don't think any of the other material could realistically be covered within the election article. I think there's enough coverage in reliable sources of specific biographical information and scandals associated with his campaign (particularly [17] [18] [19]), as well as some coverage of his business career, that would be lost if we were to redirect. And AFAIK there's no notability guideline that says that receiving GNG coverage for being an election candidate means you must be covered on the election page? MCE89 (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The business career stuff is completely unsourced, though. I simply don't see him as notable outside his losing campaign, and I don't see his campaign as particularly notable. Again we have a long history of if you only have campaign coverage and you lose, you get redirected unless some special circumstance applies. SportingFlyer T·C 01:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gabbay Award

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

Doesn't satisfy GNG. Badbluebus (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Science, Biology, and Medicine. Badbluebus (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some coverage on university websites [20] and brief mentions in Gscholar articles, but nothing about this award. I don't see enough coverage to use for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor university-level award with no independent coverage to suggest notability outside Brandeis. JoelleJay (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of biomedical science awards per nom. Relatively insignificant award whose only coverage seems to be WP:PRIMARY. Frank Anchor 19:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Torn (Lisa Ajax song)

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

Only relevant for Melodifestivalen 2019, and hasn't received sufficient coverage otherwise. dummelaksen (talk • contribs) 21:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. dummelaksen (talk • contribs) 21:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per these criterias at WP:NMUSIC. 2, The recording has appeared on Sweden’s national music chart. And within the Top10. 5, The recording was performed in a medium that is notable, yes Melodifestivalen which broadcast on the national broadcaster SVT and had millions of viewers. Criteria 6 and 7 also applies. Clearly also within WP:GNG. Clearly notable and relevant.BabbaQ (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its performance at Melodifestivalen counts against it, as the song is only ever mentioned in independent sources that cover Melodifestivalen 2019, not the song in its own right as is required for notability. For the same reason, reaching the top 10 isn't a sufficient condition as that's only an indication that such sources exist, but they don't in this case. dummelaksen (talk • contribs) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Davidson, Indiana

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

Baker says nothing about this spot that isn't about the post office, and given that it's a T intersection in the middle of a bunch of empty fields, with no buildings anywhere nearby, I think we can take him at his word, and that this wasn't a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Landvoigt

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

Tagged for notability since 2022. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Rugby union, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Olympedia has an extensive biography of him which is SIGCOV. He was an Olympic medalist and German national champion sprinter and later became a noted U.S. Secret Service agent, receiving SIGCOV for that too, e.g. [21]. He meets WP:GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Olympedia a reliable source? I am not seeing an editorial board or any named authors on their website... That is concerning.4meter4 (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's reliable: its written by a team of Olympic historians such as Bill Mallon, and previously much of the content was hosted on Sports-Reference, also a reliable source. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Mango

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

Fails WP:GNG. Some cited sources here, such as Ballotpedia, this, and this WP:FORBESCON piece do not contribute to GNG, nor does the book that he authored. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Health and fitness, Military, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even after excluding non-RSs, there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. Coverage includes his recent death, his involvement with the transition for the second Trump presidency, Operation Warp Speed and his book about it (two reviews of which are cited in the article), and his Pennsylvania gubernatorial run.

"Former Trump HHS official Paul Mango dies". Politico. 2025-01-16. Retrieved 2025-01-20.
Owermohle, Sarah (2025-01-16). "Paul Mango, Warp Speed leader and Trump adviser, dies at 65". Stat. Retrieved 2025-01-20.
"Ex-Trump HHS staffer working on transition". Politico Pro. Retrieved 2025-01-20.
Florko, Nicholas (2022-03-01). "Pfizer made Trump's vaccine push harder than it needed to be, former Warp Speed official alleges in new book". Stat. Retrieved 2025-01-20.
Seidman, Andrew (2018-07-24). "Former Pa. gov candidate Paul Mango joins Trump administration". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved 2025-01-20.
Olson, Laura (2020-10-26). "Former Pa. guv candidate Paul Mango at the center of Trump admin's vaccine push". Pennsylvania Capital-Star. Retrieved 2025-01-20.

Jfire (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I deprodded it on a suspicion that he might meet NAUTHOR, and tried searching for reviews. Of those two reviews, I am not familiar with one of the websites. I only got so far, so this discussion can be a forum to unearth more sources. Geschichte (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sherilynn Black

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

As far as I can tell, fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Subject is an assistant professor with very few scientific publications. There are a few Duke articles that mention her, and I also found a Science article where she was quoted in 2023 (https://www.science.org/content/article/women-black-researchers-less-likely-hold-multiple-nih-grants) but I think it fails to rise to level of significant coverage. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Medicine, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firecrown Media

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I would have drafted it, but the creator abandoned a draft in the draft space and created a new article in the main space.Ibjaja055 (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to do a new version, I will go ahead and let you knock it out, I rarely make new pages and (like an old saying goes) I just can't win for losing. I think the last VoD for a page I created was for Eastgate Mall and it was deleted and came back online after being overturned. Jason Trew (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Companies, and Tennessee. Ibjaja055 (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not really seeing any notability. A search yields routine coverage. Procyon117 (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Shahram

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

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Law, Islam, Iran, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Breckenridge, Indiana

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

A "nothing there" spot, indications are that it was just a 4th calss post office. Mangoe (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Yeah, I !voted in this, but there is no way this is going any other way than keep. charlotte ^👸♥ 22:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gandalf Big Naturals

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

Doesn't follow common sense. First of all. We could set a dangerous precedent of publishing nonsense on wikipedia and turn it into a dumping ground for the benefit of non-binary beings. In the second place, there is no single source that meets all the criteria of a good source. (verifiability secondary, independence, etc.) Thirdly: the topic of the article clearly gives an unambiguous link to its non-binary creator, a possible conflict of interest. Pollia (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Pollia (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and warn nominator - "link to its non-binary creator, a possible conflict of interest" Way to cast WP:ASPERSIONS. And transphobia isn't something that's welcome here, so you'll have to go elsewhere if you don't like inclusiveness. E_F⁵ 21:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - very clearly a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination and the blatantly transphobic nomination rationale isn't very convincing either. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep charlotte ^👸♥ 21:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above rationale. Clearly just a personal attack on the creator, and doesn't even state any valid deletion rationale. Sourcing very clearly meets WP:V and WP:SECONDARY. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 21:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. There's a host of questions I could ask here: what qualifies as a "good source" here when information here is verified by reliable, secondary sources? How does it not "follow common sense"? This nomination's a rather transphobic one; I'm not sure what the "potential conflict-of-interest" is either. I agree with this being a likely WP:IDONTLIKEIT case. ~ Tails Wx 21:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep clear WP:IDONTLIKEIT nom with obvious hints of transphobia Zinderboff (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, and warn nominator about WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA. Regarding the sources, The Mary Sue is secondary, independent, reliable SIGCOV. Currently reviewing the other sources, but that alone disproves the nominator's claim of "no single source". Also, a non-binary person making an article about something from a non-binary creator isn't necessarily COI – we're not all a gender hivemind. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Danielle Eckhardt

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

I was going to PROD this as a simple biography of an artist who got written up in the local newspaper, but it's worth pointing out that the actual claim to fame, "Eckhardt has headlined number of festivals and exhibitions", is sourced to this promotional and really unacceptable article from some website, an article that seems to be used as a source to build a walled garden for Ade Abayomi Olufeko. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Simons

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

Fails WP:BIO. Major example of WP:CITEKILL and WP:BOMBARD. This is a WP:ROTM architect, doing his job 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG - cannot find any significant coverage of him. Article appears created by a SPA. SportingFlyer T·C 20:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Park Grange Road tram stop

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

Not a notable topic (WP:NOTDIRECTORY); no significant improvement despite tagging for more than 3 months. I'd considered a bold merge to South Yorkshire Supertram, but there's not enough notabile information here (that's encyclopedic) to warrant it. There are other similarly poor tram stop articles in series, and they also warrant consideration. I considered bundling the proposal, but my reading of WP:BUNDLE is that these should be considered separately. Klbrain (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Herdings Leighton Road tram stop

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

Not a notable topic (WP:NOTDIRECTORY); no significant improvement despite tagging for more than 4 months. I'd considered a bold merge to South Yorkshire Supertram, but there's not enough notabile information here (that's encyclopedic) to warrant it. There are other similarly poor tram stop articles in series, and they also warrant consideration. I considered bundling the proposal, but my reading of WP:BUNDLE is that these should be considered separately. Klbrain (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BlackHatWorld

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

I don's see any reliable sources to provide notability. Note that the Yahoo source is from NewMediaWire, which seems to specifically write PR articles. Janhrach (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Technology, Internet, and Websites. Janhrach (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ – BlackHatWorld has a surprising number of hits on google scholar. It is apparently well-known within its field. Most papers only have 30–40 words of usable information, which I don't consider to be significant coverage. However, there are some exceptions. Honor among thieves: A common's analysis of cybercrime economies (cited 32 times, published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) has 150–200 words of potentially usable information. Profiling underground merchants based on network behavior (also published by IEEE) has an 86-word blurb explaining what "BlackHat World" is. I also found a conference paper titled Computer-Supported Cooperative Crime that may or may not be significant coverage – I can't access the whole thing. I can keep looking, but so far, I'm leaning towards keep. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 20:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- After taking a more thorough look, I am less convinced that this meets either the general notability guidelines or website-specific notability guidelines. Everything from APWG is peer-reviewed, but both articles from that conference only count as one source. The other scholarly sources either have the same authors (so again count as one source) or only have trivial coverage. I can't access the kernelmag.dailydot.com source, but based on how it's used, it doesn't look like it has significant coverage. The Ungagged source, which I also can't access, probably isn't independent. Coverage by Paris Martineau is insignificant. If both Tech Business News and Search Engine Round Table (aka Barry Schwartz) were reliable sources, then BlackHatWorld would meet notability guidelines. However, I do not believe this to be the case. So, regrettably, I am changing to delete PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 04:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samugam Media

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. I didn't find coverage that makes this media company notable and all I could find are primary, unreliable sources. None of the sources here is what we need for establishing notability with significant, in-depth coverage of the media company and not the publications from it. ~ Tails Wx 17:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Websites, and Sri Lanka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Samuelson

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

WP:BLP of a business executive, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for business executives. As always, business executives are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about their work in media and books -- but this is a single-sentence article of the "he is a person who exists, the end" variety, and is referenced solely to a single glancing namecheck of his existence in a source whose primary subject is his successor, which is not enough to get him over GNG all by itself. And the only other reference that was ever previously in the article at all was a directory entry that wasn't a GNG-worthy source either, while the article has been tagged as inadequately sourced since 2019 without ever being improved.
Simply existing as a business executive is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have quite a bit more substance and sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Sweden. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not contain sufficient secondary sourcing to pass WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 17:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was already speedy deleted by User:Justlettersandnumbers per WP:CSD#G7 due to the article creator's having blanked the page‎. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imtiaz Ahmed (actor)

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

Non-notable actor Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Entertainment. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Magnus, Newark-on-Trent

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

Ward that does not appear to be notable. WP:GEOLAND annoyingly provides no guidance on this, but I don't think a political ward is commonly recognized as a place. Cremastra (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC) Cremastra (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. Cremastra (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Newark-on-Trent#Newark Town Council where there is (now) a list of wards, and also add to Magnus (disambiguation), to which it should have been added on creation. If creation of an article is thought to help the reader, which should be the only reason to create it, then adding it to a dab page if it has a disambiguated title should be part of an editor's process of article creation, so that the reader can find it. PamD 17:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Newark-on-Trent#Newark Town Council. Can always be re-expanded if it meets GNG at any point. SportingFlyer T·C 18:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Newark-on-Trent#Newark Town Council. Town council ward. Notability not demonstrated. Rupples (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cadbury Favourites

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

Cadbury Heroes (confectionery) has existed as a page for sometime, however Cadbury Favourites has been created last September. Favourites is the name fir the product in Australia and New Zealand, while Heroes is the name in UK, Ireland and South Africa. I propose that we delete the new article or redirect to Heroes which already mentions Favourites.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Products, Australia, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Heroes (confectionery). Adabow (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Heroes. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

$Trump

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

No indication of notability yet and content is unlikely to be expanded further at this point. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Internet. — hako9 (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It’s obviously notable, and the ocean of sources reflects that Snokalok (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough to pass WP:GNG. Just a note: ElijahPepe earlier submitted Trump Meme on the same topic and now think the topic is non-notable. Veldsenk (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect the draft to be accepted quickly. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, crypto meeting WP:GNG through mainstream (non-crypto specific) sources. Lasting notability might be a legitimate question, but, with the information we currently have, it would be WP:CRYSTAL to vote only based on that. And very curious about this nomination as I remember commenting on Elijah's draft at AfC yesterday – which, for the matter, I would have likely accepted if I was less unsure about the title. Did something make you change your mind about the topic? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:GNG. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 17:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG 100% Is la🏳️‍⚧ 17:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm surprised this is even up for discussion. It's notable now and will become increasingly relevant during Trump's second term. It will enrich Trump greatly and be a way for oligarchs and foreign governments to pay him off. That will keep this topic in the news for years to come...Johnny Rose 11 (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has enough sources and is more than relevant, the most talked about currency in the world in the month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2802:8010:8403:1C01:748A:694F:513C:59EA (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – yes, this will be expanded in the future, Trump Begins Selling New Crypto Token, Raising Ethical Concerns. He has a pro-crypto agenda, and this memcoin already accounts for about 89% of Trump's net worth, (as of 1/19/2025, Trump's crypto holdings were worth as much as $58 billion on paper, enough -- with his other assets -- to make him one of the world's 25 richest people). Isaidnoway (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Isaidnoway. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources. AncientWalrus (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The New York Times reports that it is currently the 19th most valuable cryptocurrency in the world and The Washington Post reports that it may potentially violate the Constitution's foreign emoluments clause. This isn't going anywhere. BootsED (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please kindly note that I checked it as AFC reviewer. I was shocked with different version of same topic got redirected instead. But it still passess GNG when I was checking Draft:Trump Meme. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 04:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Withdrawn obviously notable. Royiswariii Talk! 06:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Black-tie party where other memecoin bigshots were kept occupied by loyalists while this was being made public is compared to the red wedding from Game of Thrones. A massive feat. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Post-2012 legal history of Anders Breivik

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

The content of the article has been copied from Anders Behring Breivik and consists largely of excessive and irrelevant details about Breivik's trials regarding his prison conditions. Instead of moving the cruft to a new article, we should clean up and condense the stuff in Anders Behring Breivik. Chrisahn (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Terrorism, and Norway. Chrisahn (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

obvious WP:FORK delete Mangoe (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's already far too much unnecessary detail in these sections of Anders Behring Breivik, definitely no need for a fork recounting every minute detail of the trials. MCE89 (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Treacy

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dr. Patrick Treacy

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

This article has a long history of COI and UPE editing, most recently even going so far as to produce fake news articles accusing Wikipedians of defamation. Obviously in of itself that's not a justification to delete, but looking at the sources, they are exclusively related to the publication of a book in 2015 in which the subject claims to have treated Michael Jackson. Beyond those already cited I can only find other articles that are clearly promoting other books e.g. [22] "This is an advertorial on behalf of Dr Patrick Treacy." and this article in the Times written in the first person and with "The Needle and the Damage Done is published by Austin Macauley; €30" at the end. I'm unable to find any truly substantial, independent coverage as required to meet WP:BIO. Combined with the COI issues, I believe that deletion is our best course of action. SmartSE (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Likely pass at AUTHOR for the book reviews [23] and [24] Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you mean #3? Where is the evidence that the books are "a significant or well-known work"? Those sources have the same issue as the others in the article (the second is already cited) of all being published in a short period and primarily being about Michael Jackson. The full version of the Hindu source is available here btw via WP:TWL. SmartSE (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Ireland, and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails Wikipedia:Notability: Remove Michael Jackson out of this article, and all you have left is a section listing Treacy's two published books. The Michael Jackson mentions are this doctor's own account of what went on with Jackson. — Maile (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply not notable. Allegedly treated a famous person, didn't get called as a witness in a trial - that's it. No WP:SIGCOV absent those two things. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Demzy BaYe

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and all the sources cannot count toward WP: GNG. There are also elements of source farming here, in June 2024, this source was published in up to nine ([25] , [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32] different newspapers with different titles but same contents word for word. Probably, the subject's notability is tied to being the originator of Baye Dance step, however, the dance step is also not notable. I would have redirect it to Dance with a Purpose Academy (DWP Academy) but it has no page on Wikipedia. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Dance, and Ghana. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In accepting the draft of this article, I considered it under WP:NMUSICOTHER, and yes, took the invention of dance steps to be notable, supported by national shows and performances, as documented. I don't think we're seeing source farming - rather, as happens with AP and similar, a base article was probably produced in one source location and circulated (it's not a press release) - the piece was found in respectable sources such as the Accra Times - so the only limitation is that that counts only once. Given performance, choreography, etc., I believe GNG is met, if not by much - I've seen a lot of less-well-attested articles (and yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is valid, but I weight what there is vs. the source base in Ghana). SeoR (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SeoR Thanks for the explanation but I took my time to go through all the sources and couldn't find GNG sources. The widely circulated source is highly promotional with flowery languages.hijacking the internet...He boasts a remarkable footprint... the multidimensional dance powerhouse whose talent has garnered widespread admiration and inspired an entire generation. .... Other sources are social media gossips like [33] [34] [35] and so on. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming back, and I see your point. I do think the over-circulated article could be genuine "entertainment journalism" which often tends to the flowery, but I agree it's not ideal. And the "gossipy" materials are only good for background, not as primary references. I will try to search some of the main Ghana media sites for more. In the end, this was a "Random AfC" and I have no attachment, but I am aware that our coverage of areas such as arts in most non-EU, non-Anglosphere countries could use a boost, so I'd be loathe to lose an article with real potential. SeoR (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Battle of Naband

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

Fails WP:GNG, only reference to the "Battle of Naband" is this article itself or articles direct links to it had been edited into. No WP:SIGCOV even in historical sources, certainly not to base a full article off of. One of the two sources, "Indies adventure; the amazing career of Afonso de Albuquerque, captain-general and governor of India", doesn't contain the phrase "Battle of Naband" anywhere and mentions Naband at all in passing twice in the entire book. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Iran, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd like to clarify a few points. Just because a source doesn't explicitly mention the phrase "Battle of Naband" doesn't mean the engagement didn't take place. Some sources might describe events indirectly or in different terms. Additionally, I have added another source to the article.

I also feel that this deletion nomination could have been addressed with a maintenance template instead of jumping straight to a deletion request. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably more akin to skirmish and never named by anybody as a battle. Such skirmishes happen by the millions and defined in two small paragraphs based on a verbal report from a single individual doesn't make it notable. I looked in Google books, internet archive, refseek, the web, gallica, an arabic archive, the reliable source search in afc menu and google scholar and can't find a full secondary source. Only one of the internet archive book mentions it, as a skirmish. I can't even find Naband as a location. Its close to being WP:OR. scope_creep^Talk 11:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be a battle it must have certain characteristics. One of them is being named as a battle by the folk who take part in it. scope_creep^Talk 11:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The content is well sourced. I do agree that it wasn't a battle but the user who created this article has already fixed that issue. There's loads of skirmishes that have pages on wikipedia so I don't see a problem with this one. Javext (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. The fact that Naband's location isn't even known is also problematic. Mztourist (talk) 10:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've moved the page back to the title it had when nominated here. Please do not move the page while an AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hayes (radio presenter)

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

Non-notable person. None of the sources are independent, and I found no reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RadioToday is independent, as are the non-tabloid news websites cited. Companies employing Hayes aren't "dependent" on Hayes and so, in a way, are independent.

Jw93d59 (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jw93d59 please read Wikipedia:Independent sources. Sources from places he's worked are not independent. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll delete Paul Hayes (radio presenter) now.

Jw93d59 (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok turns out I can delete it. It's clearly not good enough so I think it will be

Jw93d59 (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While some of the sources are associated with the subject, others are not. In view of coverage in the article and elsewhere, he meets basic criteria for notability.--Ipigott (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For the same reasons as Ipigott. Rillington (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SK2242 (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that with a BLP, the threshold for retention is higher.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Book

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

Bio of a state-level lobbyist that looks to me like a borderline attack page. No real notability and much of the article is about misdemeanors. Mccapra (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Politics, and Florida. Mccapra (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article takes a miscellany of media appearances by the subject and cherry-picks the most embarrassing or troubling detail to paste on a Wikipedia wall of shame, with very little actual information about the subject. This isn't what WP is for, someone is WP:NOTHERE. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update the article has been edited to remove the misdemeanours so it’s no longer a borderline attack page. It’s now just a stub that tells us he is a lobbyist who had clients, a trustee for a local charity that does good work and was investigated by the FBI. There is a case that the subject passes WP:BASIC but looking at the sources I’m not sure how you would write a fuller biography of this subject without it just being a laundry list of complaints, allegations and misdemeanours. Mccapra (talk) 07:32, 18 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, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KDK Softwares

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

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

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

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

List of Cornish soldiers, commanders and sailors

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

This list is far too broad in scope (per WP:SALAT) and would have to be much larger to be complete. See, for example, Category:Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry officers and Category:Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry soldiers from the article's See also section for omissions. Also, a list for members of the military and a particular ethnic group seems a bit odd. ~~(And why is privateer James Erisey listed here?)~~ Clarityfiend (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: Re:Erisey, because he was a sailor who commanded a man o'war? DuncanHill (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Military, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Starovičová

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Slovakia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deleting this person would create 16 redlinks across the site related to different figure skating topics. They are notable according to WP:Sportsperson

Nayyn (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would create zero redlinks; the links are removed. If you believe this person qualifies as notable, please provide evidence. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of refugia

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

Tagged as an essay for 10+ years. Effectively an orphan, listed as a see also in one article (it was also an easter egg link in another, I fixed that...). Categorized in broad category (Ice ages). WP:GNG of this is unclear. Perhaps parts of it could be merged to Refugium (population biology), which seems to be what refugia (otherwise, a disambig) means here. Why this exists as a separate article from that one is beyond me, except perhaps this is too poor to merge? But I am not familiar enough with the subject matter to be sure if this is useful to merge or not. But as a stand alone article it makes little sense to keep. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is a good, clear, cited overview (heck, even the lead is cited), followed by a perfectly sensible list of refugia as defined in population biology, with (gasp) every example actually cited (now that would transform Wikipedia's 100,000 list articles if it caught on as a meme habit...). There's nothing wrong with this list article at all; and merging it with the parent article would clutter it up and grossly unbalance it, almost doubling its length and dilute its argument which presents what a refugium is: the list correctly presents specific instances. So, I'd oppose any merge, it's a definite Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S.T.A.K.E.

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

Very niche comics (Marvel) organization. Plot summary and usual listing of few (primary) works (here, comic books) this is mentioned in. BEFORE shows nothing but obscure plot summaries. Fails WP:GNG. Redirecting to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations seems like the best solution, per WP:ATD-R? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duke City Shootout

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Airlines Flight 321

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

Based on run-of-the-mill aviation accidents, severe turbulence became a widespread cause for in-flight upsets involving aircraft, including ones that resulted in injuries because of the turbulence. While this resulted in a fatality, though tragic, aviation incidents and accidents involving severe turbulence really make the cause of this accident run-of-the-mill. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 13:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Singapore and England. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 13:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, Myanmar, and Thailand. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Just because something is becoming more common does not make it fail WP:NOTABLE. Danners430 (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Yes, it is true that turbulences are getting all the more common, but something getting more common does not necessarily mean non-notability. The fact that the last fatal commercial aviation accident relating to turbulence was in 1997 easily dispels the argument that the accident is run-of-the-mill.^[1] There clearly is continued coverage containing significant and in-depth coverage of the event in secondary sources.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] The accident resulted in lasting effects within Singapore Airlines' operations.^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that turbulence is a run-of-the-mill cause for aviation accidents. However, there is this accident caused by severe turbulence, which resulted a fatality and aircraft damages, that doesn't have a Wikipedia article: Air France Flight 437 (the sole fatality on Flight 437 occurred a few weeks after the accident, it still counts as a fatal accident) ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 15:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because we do not have an article on "X" doesn't mean we can't have an article like this (WP:OSDE). By all means, feel free to create an article on the accident, but I'm uncertain on whether or not it would survive an AfD. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One fatality, over a 100 injured, and most importantly significant coverage. Fulmard (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep I have found numerous articles of reliable sources which show an WP:LASTING coverage.^[12]^[13]^[14] Protoeus (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep notability is very clear per above. Skyshiftertalk 20:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Stening, Tanner (23 May 2024). "Can airplane turbulence really kill you? Aircraft propulsion expert weighs in on Singapore Airlines death". Northeastern Global News. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
^ Wee, Sui-Lee; Suhartono, Muktita (22 May 2024). "'Dropping Very Dramatically': What Deadly Turbulence Did to a Flight". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
^ Arranz, Adolfo; Kawoosa, Vijdan Mohammad; Kiyada, Sudev; Huang, Han; Zafra, Mariano; Scarr, Simon (22 May 2024). "The mechanics of turbulence". Reuters. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
^ Fallows, James (23 May 2024). "The Singapore Airlines Emergency: What Happened, and What Can We Learn?". Substack. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
^ Aragó, Laura; Sverdan, Roman; Patrick Pereira, Nikita; Liew WB, Jovin; Karla Mariano Mungcal, Alyssa; G.V, Xaquín (30 May 2024). "Singapore Airlines turbulence: What happened to SQ321?". The Straits Times. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
^ Yeo, Mike (29 May 2024). "Injuries to SQ321 crew, passengers likely caused by rapid changes in G-force, 178ft drop over 4.6sec". The Straits Times. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
^ Parker, Benjamin (24 May 2024). "Singapore changes in-flight service after death of man following extreme turbulence". The Independent. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
^ Sin, Carmen (25 May 2024). "SIA taking more cautious approach to meal service, safety measures during flight turbulence". The Straits Times. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
^ Leong, Grace (4 June 2024). "More airlines reviewing safety protocols after SQ321 incident, but no wholesale changes made: Iata". The Straits Times. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
^ Yufeng, Kok (1 August 2024). "SIA resumes meal service when seat-belt sign is on, lifts stricter rules after turbulence incident in May". The Straits Times. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
^ Cheng, Kenneth (11 December 2024). "SIA joins turbulence data-sharing platform 5 months after SQ321 flight left 1 dead, dozens hurt". The Straits Times. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
^ https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/sia-joins-turbulence-data-sharing-platform-6-months-after-sq321-flight-left-1-dead-dozens-hurt
^ https://www.nzherald.co.nz/travel/singapore-airlines-flight-sq321-turbulence-tragedy-could-have-been-avoided-claims-expert/RNOLPWPOEJGZLAHA7SQUZQMGJA/
^ https://travelweekly.com.au/article/aussie-law-firm-accuses-singapore-airlines-of-lowballing-passengers-impacted-by-flight-321-turbulence-incident/

List of geographic bodies by area

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

There is no clear criteria to decide what should be on this list. Currently it has oceans, international organizations, and planets named Earth. But why not time zones, deserts, etc. It could include anything. Wizmut (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assembling all different types of "geographic bodies" (undefined) together like this is inherently WP:OR, and we already have lists of largest bodies of water, largest nations by land area, and so on. Unnecessary and un-notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1968–1971 East Pakistan communist insurgency

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

I dispute that there was one such phenomenon, effectively there is a degree of WP:SYNTH here. The material on the PBSP armed struggle can be dealt with in the PBSP article, the material on the NAP-Communist Party-Student Union Guerrilla Forces is dealt with there (and can't really be framed as a 'communist insurgency', rather it was a subset of a larger nationalist campaign). There is no relation between the PBSP and the other grouping, they were not part of a single movement or tendency. There were also other groups conducting armed struggle in East Pakistan, and in opposition (to a degree or other) to Bangladeshi independence. Combining pro-Soviet, pro-Chinese groups and intermediary groups into a narrative of a 'communist insurgency' is ahistorical. Soman (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Soman above rationale...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries and territories by border/area ratio

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

A curious data point that is covered by

people copying the article [36][37]
this guy on reddit [38]
a couple homework/math websites [39][40]

I figured this was too old for WP:PROD and maybe someone knows of a book with a similar table. I like the list but it's probably not notably covered as its own thing. Wizmut (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NLIST. Procyon117 (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. Trivial statistic, plus border lengths aren't well-defined. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4XO

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

Fails WP:GNG and has no SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and New Zealand. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If someone can find archived Dunedin newspaper, this should be a very easy article to improve. The station looks to clobber the GNG if someone can get the sourcing for it, as it appears to have been the leading private station in this area for some time. Our NZ radio coverage, particularly on pre-internet topics, suffers from lack of references, but don't let that be a hindrance to determining notability. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some newspaper articles going up to 1989.

Additionally the proquest search '"4XO" AND "Dunedin"' returns a few results although I'm not sure how useful these are. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SK2242 (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Susovan Roy

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable actor, doesn't passes WP:NACTOR. I got a mail from User:Xegma, they written, Hi Taabi, this is my article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susovan_Roy why you tag deletion for it. Please remove it. I'm that actor pls withdraw it. They also closed the discussion and drafted the page. It's a clear WP:COI. The closing admin can ask me for the proof of their mail, I'll be happy to share. Taabii (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and West Bengal. Taabii (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting here as I did at ANI, Xegma is p-blocked from this discussion to avoid further disruption. They're welcome to contribute elsewhere. Star Mississippi 15:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per their roles in those two series "Anandamoyee Maa", "Korapakhi" and modeling works with several known brands. HeMahon (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Roles mentioned above are not significant roles. Notability is not inherited from notable brands he may have worked for. Sourcing is dodgy PR pieces pretending to be real articles. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 U.S. House legislative coalition

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

I am creating this deletion request on behalf of the community, not because I actually believe this article should be deleted.

Just for some context, I created an early draft of the article and abandoned after getting feedback from others that it probably wasn't notable. User:Dcpoliticaljunkie found the draft and improved it. They nicely asked on the talk page if I felt it was ready to be moved to mainspace and I said it was.

More importantly, I believe that AFD is one of the few bureaucratic processes that actually work on Wikipedia. User:Antony-22 started a merge discussion, but I find that those discussions often don't get seen by the community at large. AFD is much more obvious and the discussion is generally more structured. A few other users have made comments on the article talkpage asking for the articles deletion.

I am leaving those comments and the merge discussion below. I will add my own !vote when I get some time, probably at some point tomorrow.

This is not a European-style legislative coalition, even an informal one. Unlike in parliamentary systems, in the United States it is common and unnoteworthy for legislation to pass with some votes from both parties. The idea that Republicans should try to pass legislation without any Democratic votes is a new one—even the Hastert rule didn't require that—and one that has not even been put into practice.

What this article does have is a good description of funding-related legislation during the 118th Congress, but that text is customarily in the article for each year's federal budget. I propose to move the text to 2024 United States federal budget and 2025 United States federal budget, and possibly other articles, as appropriate. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do an AfD right now but this article seems to be deletion worthy with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH violations. 1) the idea that there are any coalitions (and I use that term loosely) between fractions of the Republican and Democratic parties exist is dubious at best and outright false at worst. 2) the infobox, especially but not to the ideology section, makes claims that are not supported in any of the sources. 3) the article can't even agree who is apart of this "coalition". 4) this article synthesizes sources from the 2 speaker elections in 2023, the removal of Kevin McCarthy, and the various bills to stop a government shutdown to create a narrative unsupported by reliable sources TheMysteriousStar (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Better off to put this in the 118th congress page. 2600:1700:1850:81F0:94CB:F7E5:B61B:B6F1 (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Esolo5002 (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge There is simply no legislative coalition. There's certainly something to say that the budget bills and some other bills were passed by an atypical bipartisan majority, but to put that in a standalone article calling it a coalition isn't right at all. It's significant that the intransigence of the Freedom Caucus has required the speaker to call votes that will pass with Democratic votes, but it's not a consistent set of members or that they're being whipped like a coalition. I think 118th United States Congress is welcome to use prose sections that incorporate this content, as well as 2024 United States federal budget and 2025 United States federal budget. Reywas92^Talk 23:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The coalition was definitely extremely informal, which makes it hard to parse through sources for. But there are several reliable sources that discuss, in detail, Republicans being unable to pass bills by themselves. Wikipedia goes off of what sourcing says, even if things aren't super formal. I think [41], [42], [43], [44], [45] and [46] are enough. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Split text to 2024 United States federal budget and 2025 United States federal budget, and possibly other articles as appropriate, per my comments copied above. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is clear synthesis. We should not create a concept out of thin air, and a review of the secondary sources does not establish notability for this hypothetical coalition. Legislative bipartisan action can be effectively covered at other pages without inventing a framework to explain it all - that's what historians do, and we're not historians. WP:NOR. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Split. To appropriate articles. Onikaburgers (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I almost feel like this discussion should have a procedural close as there is no identifiable deletion nomination rationale, at least not one that is obvious.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that a number of editors have made arguments for both keep and delete in good faith, I don't think a procedural close would be appropriate - there's evidently valid debate to be had about the fate of this article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not super familiar with the deletion process on Wikipedia but I feel that there is enough substantial coverage of this phenomena in the 118th Congress, which was unique and a distinct feature, that the article is appropriate. We did not "create a concept out of thin air". It seems some of the hang up is a result of the name and I would not be opposed to discussing a better name for the article such as "Bipartisan cooperation in the 118th House". At the very least, there is well-written content in this article that could be utilized elsewhere, but given the breadth of coverage about an unprecedented need for bipartisanship for the House to function, I believe this article (perhaps renamed) should remain in the encyclopedia. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know why people keep saying that bipartisan support of funding bills is unusual, when it is in fact commonplace in the United States. Look for example at the votes for major funding legislation for 2019, 2018, 2017, and 2016. The unusual thing here is the unsuccessful attempts to pass funding legislation along strictly party-line votes. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you object to reworking the article into something along the lines of "Bipartisan cooperation in the 118th House"? With 1 keep, 1 weak keep, 1 split, 1 merge/split, and 1 delete/merge it seems most who are not supporting keep do not object to the article's content but to its description of "coalition" (however informal). That's not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. While I think describing it as a coalition is defensible with the sourcing we have, I concede that it is less so that an article on bipartisan cooperation without describing it as a coalition. Thoughts? Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would object–my whole point is that the 118th Congress in fact features less bipartisan cooperation than historically usual. If the article is retained, a more appropriate title would be something like Attempted party-line votes in the 118th Congress.

Also, I'm not proposing to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". As I said, the text is actually quite good, and all of it should be preserved, but in the articles that typically cover this kind of content. As it is, this article is mostly a content fork of the annual U.S. budget articles, and that kind of WP:REDUNDANTFORK is itself against policy. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with United States 118th Congress. While the topics covered are highly interesting and pretty unique, the whole article is essentially just the history of the 118th Congress. It starts when the Congress starts, it ends when the Congress ends and includes nothing which took place outside the Congress. Revangarde568 (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I mean 118th United States Congress Revangarde568 (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the text is actually great and top level stuff, which is why I'm not suggesting to delete, just merge Revangarde568 (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Alanis

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet GNG and no longer meets NMMA Nswix (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Nswix (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Databases and fight results don't show that WP:GNG is met. Although he met an old notability criteria for MMA fighters, with a 5-3 record he never came close to meeting the existing standard of being world top 10. Fails to meet any current WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deb Hutton

AfDs for this article:

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

Virtually non-existent, secondary, reliable source coverage for this individual in Canada, fails WP:NBASIC. Recreating previously AfD’d page (from 2006) but there has been an ounce of more coverage. Only really covered in one article (about her volunteer role as a “fixer” after a scandal) and the rest are passing coverage, mostly in what would probably be considered WP:NINI & WP:BIOFAMILY. She the wife of Tim Hudak.

Lots of trivia in the article, in an apparent attempt to bolster notability, such as passing mentions of affiliations, prior employers, or the fact that she was part of a debate prep “acting” the part of a well known politician. Even the bulk of the fixer story was basic quoting of either her or other people directly involved. While has worked with politicians, does not qualify as a politician for notability/BLP requirements.

Otherwise nobody seems to be really covering her.

Attempts to handle through notability tagging and talking with article creator have failed. Independent research has uncovered precious little for a WP:BIO.

Not to be confused with either of the two more notable Deborah Hutton’s of which come up in search results even for Deb.

Also was mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jaime_Watt which was also deleted, but now a redirect.

Would be okay with merging some into the husband, but there is precious more than a sentence or three worth moving. TiggerJay (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TiggerJay (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. 2 articles discuss her role in the Greenbelt scandal. This fact is about her and not her relationship with Tim Hudak.

2. She was not Tim Hudak's wife when she became Premier Harris's chief of staff, that has nothing to do with her marriage. I think that there may be offline sources that cover this in greater detail, given the time period in question.

3. She is an independent political actor. She writes political columns which have been discussed: https://www.ombudsman.on.ca/resources/speeches-and-articles/speeches/2019/politicians-cannot-do-the-work-of-independent-officers-of-the-legislature-(qp-briefing) https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/how-the-right-defends-policy-lite-brown-hepburn/article_1206a6f9-ea8b-56fd-9b3a-cab27386e28f.html I haven't been able to source the original columns yet or encyclopedic sources, but I think there's potential here.

4. There's another article which provides substantial coverage about her currently linked in the article and it has nothing to do with Greenbelt scandal.

5. She currently on the Metrolinx board of directors. Metrolinx is a controversial agency, and I may be able to find sources that are about her role as a director specifically. Such a source would could be paid, such as a transportation or engineering magazine, given the niche topic.

I may prematurely moved the article from draftspace. I think the most appropriate action is that it is moved back to draftspace, given the likelihood that more information can be uncovered. Legend of 14 (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this article: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ontario-liberals-target-conservative-leader-hudaks-wife-over-cancelled-gas-plant. That's 4 independent sources, with substantial coverage, about 3 different topics. Legend of 14 (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion about the merits of those point

To be clear the criteria for inclusion is not about simply having reliable sources, nor if you know that it is TRUE, but rather if it meets specific criteria for being notable. See the linked policies in response to each of your points:

The two sources are effectively WP:PRIMARY sources as they recount who-said-what. I was unable to find any significant WP:SECONDARY coverage of this "volunteer role" such as the impact, result, or aftermath of her involvement (ie did it accomplish anything of note). Hutton's role isn't even covered in the Greenbelt scandal article.
Both Hudak and Harris are simply passing mentions of being in proximity of notable people and thus it would still fail WP:NINI. The exact timeline isn't relevant.
The reliable sources refer to her as a "longtime strategist"[47] and " one-time chief of staff" (e.g. appointed) [48] which is in the realm of politics does not mean she meets WP:POLITICIAN, and simply having those titles does not itself establish notability.
The other sig-coverage I assume you're referring to is "Tim Hudak’s daughter Miller the light of his life" -- which is an article centered around their daughter, and the only reason this article was covered was given in the title, because it was about the notable, Tim Hudak and the impact on his political aspirations their daughters illness created. WP:NINI
Per reliable sources from the article, her role on the board is a "part-time role." [49]. No indication she had any significant role, in anything having to do with any scandal of Metrolinx, and again, isn't even referenced in that article's page.
With regards to the National Post citation above, I think the title is supporting of a general lack of notability "Ontario Liberals target Conservative leader Hudak's wife over cancelled gas plant" (emphasis added) -- the article has chosen to use "leader's wife" instead of directly referencing Hutton by name in the title.

Based on the above, I suggest nothing has been provided to support WP:PERSON the person [...] should be "worthy of notice" [...], "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". She appears to have worked in the proximity of notable people/events/companies, but does not support that she meets any of the criteria of being independently notable. Also does not meet WP:ANYBIO criteria. TiggerJay (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. The people who wrote the articles have no first hand knowledge of Deb Hutton's role in the Greenbelt scandal. Secondary sources including quotes from Primary sources, does not make them primary. The content not being the Greenbelt scandal article has no basis on Hutton's notability. It's a good idea for her to be mentioned by that article.

2. Sources make clear her role in appointed positions are significant. In 2003, the the Globe and Mail said that no government decisions were made without her approval: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/here-are-the-backroom-players/article18430066/.

3. There's more to the article than those titles. So this point is irrelevant.

4. The article gives significant coverage to Hutton's actions not just Hudak's.

5. Her not being referenced by the Metrolinx page does not support her not being notable. That article should probably mention her and other board members.

6. Just because the article title chooses to disrespectfully refer to her as Tim Hudak's wife, does not mean the article was not primarily about her.

A coverage gap in other articles does not support a finding of lack of notability. It supports a finding that the articles in question should be updated. Wikipedia is not a place were women's actions should be attributed to men, despite the fact that others may do that. Just because other sources give undue weight to Deb Hutton's relationship with her husband, does not mean we can do the same here, WP:NPOV. The national post article is about Deb Hutton and giving only passing mentions to her husband, not the other way around. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your approach to handling contentious issues does not work towards consensus building, which has been been demonstrated time and time again. ANI ANI 2 BLPN talk talk 2 As such, I can only see further responding to you here will add heat without light, so I will defer to other editors to discuss the merits of this article. TiggerJay (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am working on adding sources to the article, so for now this will be a comment. Thus far the best WP:SIGCOV I have found is a two page article on Hutton from the Toronto Star: ^[1]

References

^ Urquhart, Ian (2003-08-09). "They call her 'Premier Hutton'". The Toronto Star. pp. [1], [2]. Retrieved 2025-01-19.

DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great find! Keep looking for SIGCOV, after a half hour I couldn't find anything. But keep looking! TiggerJay (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Courtesy pinging all editors from prior AfD who have been edited in the last 12 months per WP:APPNOTE : @MCB: @Yom: TiggerJay (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hutton's role as a political strategist in Canadian politics has spanned multiple administrations in Ontario. In addition to the source I cited above from the Toronto Star, the other two best sources are here: [50] and [51]. All three of these articles are WP:SIGCOV. In addition she has received additional minor mentions in multiple publications that are reliable and independent, further contributing to WP:BASIC. ~~~~
Delete per nom. Fails WP:42. JFHJr (㊟) 03:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yissum Research Development Company of the Hebrew University

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

WP:PROMOTIONAL article for a subsiduary of Hebrew University of Jerusalem that doesn't seem to have any presence in it's own right per WP:INHERITORG. Current sources are, a database entry which doesn't establish notability. Times Higher Ed and Jewish Post (archived) do mention Yissum (they call it Aleph-Yissum in the THE article) but only in passing. Also cited NYT, Jewish Press and The Verge articles which don't mention Yissum at all. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Israel. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Article PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, added plenty of references today. Thank you for your support! Tvogelyissum (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The Jerusalem Post article counts as significant coverage in an independent reliable source. Of the other sources, while two are from the Times of Israel the one that goes into more depth was written by Yissum's CEO, and the other has just a short paragraph about the company. ToI does have more stories about the company such as this and this constitute in-depth coverage from reliable sources, so I think the subject is notable. Perhaps it could be adequately covered in the article on the university? Richard Nevell (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, looking at the article, it doesn't seem like new sources have been added here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feng (surname 酆)

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

Not sure why this was deprodded since it still fails WP:NNAME. It could be redirected to the one person with the name but the parenthetical disambiguator would make it an implausible target, as someone searching up "Feng (surname 酆)" is going to expect information on the surname and not Feng Yunhe. Of the two sources in the article, one only mentions the name and the other is a dictionary. The sources I could find online are not much better, pretty much only WP:ROTM name websites of questionable reliability. I can't see anything suggesting evidence of notability for this name. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 新編百家姓 [New Edition of the Hundred Family Surnames] (in Chinese). Taipei: Cheng Chung Book Company [zh]. 2005. p. 327. ISBN 978-957-0917-529. Retrieved 2025-01-13 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "春秋時期,鄭穆公有個兒子叫豐,在鄭僖公時任大夫,豐的孫子施、卷以他們的祖父的名為姓氏,稱為豐氏。二是出自國名。周初,周文王的第十七子封於酆國,後人以國名為姓,稱為酆氏。後來,後人中有取酆(現簡化為豐)的左邊為姓,即豐姓。豐姓是當今少見的姓氏,人數不多,但分布很廣,天津、河北、山東、內蒙古、廣西、雲南、四川等地均有豐姓。歷代名人唐代有高僧豐幹。宋代有義士豐存芳。明代有狀元豐熙,書法家豐坊,詩人豐越人,學者豐寅初,進士豐慶。現代有著名教育家、畫家豐子愷。慶麼姓淵源慶姓來源主要有三. 豐姓始祖公子豐慶姓始祖慶輔."
  From Google Translate: "During the Spring and Autumn Period, Duke Mu of Zheng had a son named Feng, who served as a minister during the reign of Duke Xi of Zheng. Feng's grandsons Shi and Juan took their grandfather's name as their surname, and were called Feng. The second is that it comes from the name of the country. In the early Zhou Dynasty, the seventeenth son of King Wen of Zhou was granted the title of Feng State. Later generations took the name of the state as their surname, and were called Fengshi. Later, some descendants took the left side of Feng (now simplified to Feng) as their surname, namely Feng. The surname Feng is a rare surname nowadays. There are not many people with this surname, but it is widely distributed. People with the surname Feng can be found in Tianjin, Hebei, Shandong, Inner Mongolia, Guangxi, Yunnan, Sichuan and other places. Famous people throughout the ages: In the Tang Dynasty, there was the eminent monk Feng Gan. In the Song Dynasty, there was a righteous man named Feng Cunfang. In the Ming Dynasty, there were the top scholar Feng Xi, the calligrapher Feng Fang, the poet Feng Yueren, the scholar Feng Yinchu, and the Jinshi Feng Qing. In modern times, there is the famous educator and painter Feng Zikai. There are three main sources of the surname Qing. The ancestor of the surname Feng is Gongzi Feng and the ancestor of the surname Qing is Qing Fu."
2. "【姓氏小談】酆姓" [[Short Talk on Surnames] Feng]. Merit Times [zh] (in Chinese). 2010-08-05. Archived from the original on 2025-01-13. Retrieved 2025-01-13.
  The article notes: "出自姬姓：周武王滅商後，封自己的弟弟，即周文王的第十七子於酆邑，建立侯國，世稱酆侯。周成王時，酆侯被廢黜，其後人以酆為姓氏。酆姓主要分布在湖南、陝西、安徽、湖北等省市。據說，出自山西省洪洞縣的酆姓族人曾遭遇大災荒，多數向北方遷移，遷出的人們大多居住在山西省朔州一帶，大同也有一些。"
  From Google Translate: "From the Ji surname: After King Wu of Zhou destroyed the Shang Dynasty, he granted his younger brother, the seventeenth son of King Wen of Zhou, the title of Marquis of Fengyi and established a marquisate, known as Fenghou. During the reign of King Cheng of Zhou, Marquis Feng was deposed and his descendants took Feng as their surname. The surname Feng is mainly distributed in provinces and cities such as Hunan, Shaanxi, Anhui, and Hubei. It is said that the Feng clan from Hongdong County, Shanxi Province once suffered a great famine and most of them migrated to the north. Most of the people who migrated lived in Shuozhou area of Shanxi Province, and there were also some in Datong."
  The article lists these notable people with the surname:
  1. Feng Shu (Chinese: 酆舒) – a self-proclaimed king in the Lu State during the Spring and Autumn Period
  2. Feng Shenzhi (Chinese: 酆伸之), a jinshi during the Song Dynasty
  3. Feng Yingchu (Chinese: 酆寅初), director of the Imperial College during the Hongwu period. From the late Yuan dynasty and early Ming dynasty.
  4. Fengmou (Chinese: 酆謀) – a jinpi during the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom
  5. Feng Zhesheng (Chinese: 酆哲生), a translator and visiting lecturer at the University of Hawaii
3. Zhang, Xuexian 张学衔 (2000). 华夏百家姓探源 [Exploring the Origins of the Hundred Surnames of China] (in Chinese). Nanjing: Nanjing University Press [zh]. p. 129. ISBN 978-7-305-01708-7. Retrieved 2025-01-13 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "酆〔 Fēng 〕京兆郡渤海堂酆姓起源京兆,祖宗酆侯。"
  From Google Translate: "The surname Feng originated from Jingzhao, and the ancestor was Feng Hou."
  The article notes: "【姓氏来源】《元和姓纂》记载: “周文王第十七子酆侯之后,以国为姓。”《左传》上说: “酆舒有二隽才,京兆。”由此可知,酆姓是出自 3000 多年以前周文王的第十七个儿子酆侯,由于被封于酆(今陕西户县东) ,所以,子孙也就按照当时的习惯,以国为姓,称为酆氏。望族居京兆郡(今陕西长安东)。【历史名人】春秋时潞国有执政大臣酆舒。宋代有著名道士酆去奢。【宗祠堂号】渤海堂。出自宋代酆去奢的故事。酆去奢,少为崇山官道士,精思忘瘦,一心行道,据传说去渤海向蓬莱仙岛,得道成仙而去。后世酆姓人家就以他去“渤海”成仙作为纪念,取堂号为“渤海堂”。【楹联】二擅隽才(酆舒) ,双成寿考(酆寅初)。"
  From Google Translate: "【Origin of surname】《Yuanhe Xingzhuan》 records: "The descendants of Fenghou, the seventeenth son of King Wen of Zhou, took the country as their surname." "Zuo Zhuan" says: "Feng Shu has two talented people, Jingzhao." From this, we can know that the surname Feng comes from Fenghou, the seventeenth son of King Wen of Zhou more than 3,000 years ago. Because he was granted the title of Feng (now east of Huxian County, Shaanxi), his descendants also followed the custom at that time and took the country as their surname, called Feng. The prominent family lived in Jingzhao County (now east of Chang'an, Shaanxi). 【Historical celebrities】During the Spring and Autumn Period, there was a ruling minister Feng Shu in Lu State. In the Song Dynasty, there was a famous Taoist priest Feng Qushe. 【Ancestral Hall Name】Bohai Hall. It comes from the story of Feng Qushe in the Song Dynasty. Feng Qushe was a Taoist priest in Chongshan when he was young. He was so devoted to Taoism that he forgot his weight and practiced Taoism. According to legend, he went to Bohai Sea and went to Penglai Island, where he became an immortal. In later generations, people with the surname Feng used his immortality in Bohai Sea as a commemoration and named their hall "Bohai Hall". [Couplet] Two talented people (Feng Shu), two longevity (Feng Yinchu)."
4. Peng, Guifang 彭桂芳 (1980). 五百年前是一家 [500 Years Ago, We Were One Family] (in Chinese). Vol. 1. Taipei: Li Ming Cultural Enterprise [zh]. OCLC 13993130. Retrieved 2025-01-13 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "唐代的京城是建於長安,則當時酆姓人家最多的地方其中的道理,十分顯然。鄭姓的始祖是周文王的兒子酆侯;豐姓雖然是鄭穆公之子豐的後裔,但是,當時鄭國也是由周文王的後裔所建,則推算起來,豐姓豈不也是源自周文王?所以,酆姓與豐姓,實際上是一根兩枝,算起來都是黃帝軒轅氏的姬姓後裔。兩姓源異而本同說起來,我國姓氏的奧妙之處就在這裏,鄭姓與豐姓,雖然乍看之下各有各的來源,彼此之間並無淵源,但是如果再進一步認真地追溯起來,就可以發現另一番景象———在三千年以前,兩姓根本就是一家人。"
  From Google Translate: "The capital of the Tang Dynasty was built in Chang'an, so it is obvious that Chang'an was the place with the largest number of families with the surname Feng at that time. The ancestor of the Zheng surname was Feng Hou, the son of King Wen of Zhou. Although the Feng surname is a descendant of Feng, the son of Duke Mu of Zheng, the State of Zheng was also founded by the descendants of King Wen of Zhou. So, doesn't it mean that the Feng surname also originated from King Wen of Zhou? ?Therefore, the surname Feng and the surname Feng are actually two branches of the same root, and both are descendants of the Ji surname of Emperor Huangdi Xuanyuan. The two surnames have different origins but the same origin. This is the mystery of Chinese surnames. Although Zheng and Feng have their own origins at first glance and have no connection with each other, if we take a closer look, Looking back, we can find a different picture—three thousand years ago, the two surnames were actually one family."
5. Wang, Daliang 王大良 (2001). 当代百家姓 [The Hundred Surnames of Contemporary China] (in Chinese). Beijing: Meteorological Press 气象出版社. p. 194. ISBN 978-7502-9305-23. Retrieved 2025-01-13 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "酆 feng 酆姓人相传是周文王的后代。早在商朝末年,周文王之子周武王灭商建国,为了扩大王室的势力,把自己的多位弟弟分封于天下,其中第 17 弟被分封于酆(今陕西户县一带) ,为侯国,史称酆侯。后来,酆侯的后代便以这一封国的名称为姓,姓酆,从而成为最早的一批酆姓人。鄭姓得姓以后,在历史上又以京兆等为郡望,并出现了春秋时潞人酆舒、宋朝进士酆伸之等著名人物。当代,酆姓也是一个分布较为广泛的姓氏,尤其是在陕西、四川等省,都较为容易见到以此为姓的人。"
  From Google Translate: "Feng. It is said that people with the surname Feng are descendants of King Wen of Zhou. As early as the end of the Shang Dynasty, King Wu of Zhou, the son of King Wen of Zhou, destroyed the Shang Dynasty and founded the state. In order to expand the power of the royal family, he divided the country among his brothers. Among them, the 17th brother was given the title of Marquis of Feng (now Huxian County, Shaanxi Province). , known in history as Feng Hou. Later, the descendants of Feng Hou took the name of this fiefdom as their surname, Feng, and became the earliest group of people with the surname Feng. After the surname Zheng was derived, in history, Jingzhao and other counties were considered as the ancestral home, and there emerged such famous figures as Feng Shu, a Luren in the Spring and Autumn Period, and Feng Shenzhi, a Jinshi in the Song Dynasty. Nowadays, Feng is also a widely distributed surname, especially in provinces such as Shaanxi and Sichuan, where it is easy to see people with this surname."
6. 中國百家姓解說辭典 [Dictionary of the Explanation of the Hundred Family Surnames of China] (in Chinese). Taipei: Shin Wen Feng Print Company 新文豐出版公司. 1985. p. 94. Retrieved 2025-01-13 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "酆出中國有姓酆的人,也有姓的人,這兩個姓氏的讀音相同,其間只差了一個邑字旁。那麽,這兩者之間是不是有什麼特別的關係或淵源呢?要弄清楚這個問題,就得先行把兩個姓氏的姓源分辦一下一關於酆姓的姓源,「姓纂」和「名賢氏族言行類稿」都是這樣記載的:「周文王第十七子鄂侯之後,以國爲姓,左傳酆舒有二雋才,京兆。」鄭豐兩姓的來源,這兩者之間是不是有什麼特別的關係或淵源呢?相信這必然是一個大家所關心的問題。要弄清楚這個問題,就得先行把兩個姓氏的姓源分辨一下————中國有姓酆的人,也有姓的人,這兩個姓氏的讀音相同,其間只差了一個邑字旁。"
  From Google Translate: "There are people in China with the surname Feng, and there are also people with the surname Feng. These two surnames have the same pronunciation, with the only difference being the character "邑" on the radical. So, is there any special relationship or origin between the two? To clarify this question, we must first analyze the origins of the two surnames. Regarding the origin of the surname Feng, "Xingzhuan" and The "Records of Words and Deeds of Famous Clans" all record it like this: "The descendants of the seventeenth son of King Wen of Zhou, Marquis of E, took the country as their surname. Zuo Zhuan recorded that there were two talented people in Fengshu, Jingzhao." The origin of the two surnames Zheng and Feng, Is there any special relationship or origin between the two? I believe this must be a question that everyone is concerned about. To clarify this question, we must first distinguish the origins of the two surnames. In China, there are people with the surname Feng and people with the surname Feng. The two surnames have the same pronunciation, with the only difference being the character Yi.."
7. Less significant coverage:
  1. 宝宝的第一本国学启蒙书：三字经百家姓 [Baby's First Book of Chinese Classical Education: Three Character Classic and Hundred Family Surnames] (in Chinese). Beijing: China Textile Press [zh]. 2020. ISBN 978-3-16-148410-0. Retrieved 2025-01-13 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "酆姓氏来源周武王建立周朝后,将他的弟弟封于酆邑,他的后代以地名为姓,酆姓就是由此产生的。"
    From Google Translate: "Origin of the surname Feng: After King Wu of Zhou established the Zhou Dynasty, he granted his younger brother the title of Marquis of Feng. His descendants took the place name as their surname, and the surname Feng came from this."
  2. Gao, Zhuguan 高諸觀 (1981). 台灣人的根: 八閩全鑑 [Taiwanese Roots: A Complete Guide to Fujian] (in Chinese). Yilan: Taiwan News and Culture Publishing House 台灣新聞文化出版社. OCLC 17074117. Retrieved 2025-01-13 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "The exact time when the Feng surname migrated to Taiwan cannot be verified. Most of the surnames in Taiwan come from Fujian,"
    From Google Translate: "The exact time when the Feng surname migrated to Taiwan cannot be verified. Most of the surnames in Taiwan come from Fujian,"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Feng (surname 酆) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you finding these sources. Personally I don't believe these sources prove notability as they are all just lists of names repeating the same story about how the name supposedly originated. I don't think appearing on these kinds of lists suggests notability, especially since most of these sources have very similar titles. And they all contain only a brief paragraph about the name tantamount to a mere mention. Pretty WP:ROTM stuff. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources were published in 1980, 1985, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2010. The sources show that the surname has been extensively discussed for decades. There is enough information that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" (quoting from Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline). This depth of coverage about the surname means that WP:NOTDICT is not violated. The guideline Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Minor differences notes: "An article about a given name or a surname is an anthroponymy article that contains a list of people with this name as well as encyclopedic content about the meaning, etymology and history of the name." The sources provide enough information to write an article that has "encyclopedic content about the meaning, etymology and history of the name". Cunard (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Names still have to meet WP:NNAME, which states that a name that nobody with a Wikipedia article has is likely not notable unless it has exceptional sourcing, as names are just words above all. The sources you’ve provided are almost exclusively lists and dictionaries, and most of them are just different iterations of the same source, the Baijiaxing. I don’t believe that WP:NOTDICT hasn’t been violated. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NNAME doesn't say anything about exceptional sourcing. It says that A properly sourced article about a name may still be notable without a list. In other words, a name that meets WP:GNG is presumed notable, like any other topic that meets GNG. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes though like I said it is an anthroponym so any name without significant in-depth sourcing is not notable unless two or more people with Wikipedia articles have it. That’s why I said “exceptional sourcing” since there’s really no other way for a name to be notable if it there are no articles about people with the name. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need exceptional sourcing, just significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. In any case, I've added several other notable people to the list in the article (they don't yet have articles on the English Wikipedia, but they do on the Chinese Wikipedia). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets GNG per the sources found by Cunard. I suspect all surnames in the Baijiaxing will meet GNG, because of sources (like some of the ones above) that discuss the history of each surname in the poem. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:46, 17 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!} 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I strongly suspected before seeing this AfD that the hundred surnames were all notable, and the in-depth source coverage uncovered above confirms it to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Azaiez

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

Bio of a footballer where most of the content is unsourced. Both sources in the article indicate that the subject was not n the team that won the Africa cup of nations in 2004 so there is literally nothing here that is sourced. A search for sources is complicated by the fact that there’s a Saudi player of the same name, but I don’t see in-depth coverage of this subject. Articles on ithe4 wikis are just sourced to databases. Mccapra (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Tunisia. Mccapra (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he won AFCON, the premier tournament in Africa. Really poor nomination. Giant Snowman 12:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Bad article, but certainly a notable player. Anwegmann (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any SIGCOV in Arabic- or French-language sources for Azaiez. He did make a single appearance for Tunisia at the 2004 AFCON, but it was in a final group stage match after Tunisia clinched progress after winning its first two group stage matches and fielded a largely reserve side in that match. I found that he also played in a single AFCON qualifier (according to RSSSF), but otherwise only appeared in a handful of friendlies. We can't really say much else about this footballer as there are no other online sources available. Jogurney (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jogourney. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramam Raghavam

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see enough coverage that GNG is met, especially since this is before release of the film. I'm willing to revisit in two to three months if the coverage completely dries up after release. —C.Fred (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you are seeing in the article is WP:CHURNALISM. Routine coverage of announcements, articles without bylines and interviews given as part of the film's promotion. If you actually thought that GNG was met here, then there would be no point in revisiting this article in two months. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Tinker Watkins

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

Biography of a non-notable individual and a contested draftification. Unless being President General of the Daughters of the American Revolution is considered an inherently notable post (and I don't know of any consensus that would indicate such), she fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. A quick review of sources:

[52], unreliable per WP:ANCESTRY.COM
Non-independent sources from organizations Tinker Watkins was affiliated with: [53], [54].
WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in non-independent sources: [55], [56], [57].
More trivial mentions: [58] and a single passing mention in a newspaper photo caption

I searched for more in the standard BEFORE search, but the page creator seems to have put every possible source into this article, making it unlikely that there is more out there since none of these sources qualifies for notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Tennessee. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. President General position in Daughters of American Revolution does not appear to be an inherently notable position, many of the others don't have Wikipedia pages. Can't find any non-trivial mentions of subject besides what is already included in citations. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Berman

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

Tagged for notability since 2018. Time for the community to discuss this and decide one way or the other. Not clear the subject passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, California, Missouri, New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Via Vinci Academy

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

The Via Vinci Academy never really got off the ground. It was a short-lived project that went bankrupt in 2011. The only claim to fame is that the project prompted the dutch government to introduce a regulation that allows only recognized universities to carry the word "University" in its name. I think the so-called "Via Vincy Academy" does not pass WP:ORG and the best we can do is delete the article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Schools. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no sufficient coverage. Drushrush (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HueningKai

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

The subject of this article has not yet demonstrated individual notability outside of his band, Tomorrow X Together, which is a criteria per the notability guideline at WP:BANDMEMBER. This is evident from the largely empty "Career" section that shows very little in the way of individual activity that would assist in establishing individual notability.

Subject has not released any solo singles that have charted anywhere that could assist in establishing individual notability, or participated in any activities of note outside of his membership in the band. The article mentions his individual participation in a YouTube series, which was uploaded onto the band's YouTube channel, but it doesn't seem to have received WP:SIGCOV outside of a few sources that are largely churned from a press release.

Recommend redirect to Tomorrow X Together

Note this AfD is the result of a contested WP:BLAR RachelTensions (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Korea, and South Korea. RachelTensions (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: as the person hasn't met WP:MUSICBIO in general. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 02:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tomorrow X Together. Subject is not independently notable. Random86 (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Backwards

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

Delete per WP:TNT. Been tagged since 2009 and nobody has pitched in. So many issues in this article, including the use of many quotes with no supporting attributed sources of potentially copyrighted materials. (his jokes probably are copyrighted and these quotes are likely copyright infringements unless we give attribution). The only source used is an SNL transcript which is a primary source. There's unsubstantiated claims of varying kinds that require a source because of the nature of the claim. This person is notable but the article requires a complete rewrite. Best to blow this up and start over from scratch.4meter4 (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Entertainment, and Georgia (U.S. state). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per not WP:NOTQUOTE Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, he has sources on him in Newspapers.com, Professor Backwards To Entertain At Taylorville Country Club Stag (The Taylorville Daily Breeze Courier), Prof. Backwards (Nosdnomde) Staging Swohs Twice Nightly (The Morning Call), Professor Backward Hit With 'drawkcaB' Actions (The Commercial Appeal), Professor Backwards Comes To Greenville (The Greenville News) and Professor's Murder Predictable (The Greenville News). It doesn't have to be deleted, it could still be rewritten in the same article. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We might have to get an admin to redact the copyright infringed material from the article history if you want to pursue this option.4meter4 (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for goodness' sake, his murder made SNL's Weekend Update. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability was never the issue here. The article had copyright infringement violations and was entirely unreferenced (although much of that was gutted after it was brought to AFD). This was a WP:TNT nomination.4meter4 (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I should mention that this article has really been gutted including all of the details of his passing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of coverage, this in a newspaper from the 50s, [59], also with everything else cited in the other comments. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hancock Chapel, Indiana

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

The name of this as "Hancock Chapel" as opposed to just "Hancock", seems to be an accident of map updating/reading, because a topo in the 1950s just calls the place "Hancock". The actual chapel, which is still there, is a bit south of the label, on the west side of the T intersection. There is a scattering of buildings about, but not so obviously organized as to make clear it was a town. Baker says right out that Hancock was a 4th class PO, but it's not at all clear that the updated label was sup[posed to be for the church, and rural churches usually are labelled. Searching is impeded by the commonness of the name and by the presence of Hancock County. By all means, go ahead and try to clarify this, but at this point it seems to be a somewhat made-up place due to unclear map labels. Mangoe (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful India

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

A highly promotional page for a non-notable fragrance brand. (Sample puffery: True to India’s philosophical essence and its universal message of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam—Sanskrit for “ The world is one family “— it is a reminder that we are all ONE and that PEACE is our true nature.) Not a single source would qualify for WP:NCORP; it's all press release-based churnalism, unbylined content in WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources, sponsored content, etc. Nothing qualifying found in WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and France. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Typical paid for advertorials and promotional content you would expect from likely UPE. Nothing meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly promotional and nothing to suggest notability. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatantly promotional, no sigcov. Procyon117 (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1927 U.S. Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competitions. I had attempted to redirect these articles to U.S. Figure Skating Championships, as has been done with literally hundreds of similar articles over the past month, but was reverted on the grounds that "This page have [sic] a reference source". As if that was the problem. Since the medalists were the only information supported by what sources I could access, I added those sources to the parent article. Recommend deletion or forced redirect back to U.S. Figure Skating Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Skating. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All pages have a references source, it's not non-notable. If you think it's not enough, you can add it more. The past year was so far and it need more time find the sources. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect: There's no need for an individual page for each year; the information can be better presented on a single page for the recurring event as a whole. Espatie (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I have already merged what little there was of value. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Espatie: No need for an individual page for each year, what does it means? If you agree that, all pages should be redirect. Stevencocoboy (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what it says: there is no need for a separate article for every year of this event. One page for the event as a whole, with a combined table of results is sufficient Espatie (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Commission of Agricultural Engineering

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

Blatantly promotional, unsourced article about an organization. It could be notable, but I see no reason for the article in its current to remain on the mainspace. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Organizations, Education, and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and need more sources. HeMahon (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voice (Indiana)

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

Non-notable promo article. A google search only really yields self-published and primary sources. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Education, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neoh Hui-min

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

Does the subject of this article meet the guidelines for notability for academics? Cannot find much independent or external references about her. Unsure if Deputy Director position confers notability but again limited search results aside from academic papers InsomniaOpossum (talk)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Biology, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is an associate professor, which is a sign that it's probably unlikely that they meet WP:NPROF. I couldn't find any mention of major awards etc. and I don't think the Deputy Director position could confer any per se notability. So the only criteria they could meet would be WP:NPROF#C1. An h-index of 26 and about 4000 total citations in a relatively high-citation field is not bad, but I don't think it's quite enough for C1. MCE89 (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced sections and need more sources. HeMahon (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep‎. Anonymous 15:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Breast implant illness

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

I've never attempted to invoke WP:TNT before, but I'm going to go ahead and try here, very cautiously. This is a stub article on a notable topic created by a user who has been blocked twice from creating new articles following their history of mass-creating short, poorly written, and poorly sourced stubs (like this one). There is absolutely nothing useful on this page or in its history. The sources are obviously inadequate for a medical topic. If someone wanted to improve this article, they would have to restart from scratch, and I mean that without a hint of exaggeration. Therefore, I am carefully suggesting we TNT this to encourage this to happen. To be clear, I understand that this is almost never a good reason to delete an article, and I understand that opposing views exist, such as WP:TNTTNT. Still, even after reading through opposing essays on the matter, this looks to be an extremely rare case where nothing associated with this article is salvageable (neither what's currently there nor in its history). I am fully expecting backlash over this, but I would like to emphasise that I wholeheartedly agree that using deletion as cleanup is almost always a bad thing. This is an extremely uncommon case where the entire article is unusable. All that said, and while I myself don't feel qualified enough to do so, if anyone else had the time to improve this, I would withdraw my nomination immediately, as again, notability is not the problem. Anonymous 02:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Medicine. Anonymous 02:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I am not going to pretend that I don’t understand the TNT argument or have never considered it myself. That said, I’m not sure I understand it, here. It’s a stub. Just work on it as-necessary. From a quick Google, it appears that the topic is likely notable. (Not to get into WP:OR territory, but as a side-note, it’s not a proper diagnosis because it sounds like it is a mild post-operative infection) That said, it being a stub — in my opinion — works against the TNT argument. It would need to be just a huge set of information along with egregious errors for me to consider wiping an article completely. The title is salvageable, no? Breastcancer.org and the Mayo Clinic both refer it as BII. Surely someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine could assist with this?

MWFwiki (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic certainly seems notable - a quick search reveals articles in The Guardian [60], the Australian ABC [61], Spectrum News [62] and the BBC [63]. Surely it would be possible to expand and improve the article, rather than deleting it? The information in it doesn't seem incorrect, just not appropriately expressed. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The news sources demonstrate notability, so they have a valid function, and what is said appears to be true. It's surprising anyone would attempt to write a med. article without using any MEDRS sources. Here are some:

Cohen Tervaert, J. W., et al. "Breast implant illness: scientific evidence of its existence." Expert review of clinical immunology 18.1 (2022): 15-29.

Kaplan, Jordan, and Rod Rohrich. "Breast implant illness: a topic in review." Gland Surgery 10.1 (2021): 430.

Magnusson, Mark R., et al. "Breast implant illness: a way forward." Plastic and reconstructive surgery 143.3S (2019): 74S-81S.

Newby, Jill M., et al. "Understanding breast implant illness." Aesthetic surgery journal 41.12 (2021): 1367-1379.

There are plenty more med. sources available. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above. There are more sources available too, but the ones linked above should prove sufficient for notability. WP:TNT doesn't seem appropriate here given it's only a five-sentence stub. Procyon117 (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MWFwiki, @RebeccaGreen, @Chiswick Chap, @Procyon117: Alright, alright, everyone. I understand. I've decided I will take matters into my own hands and attempt to personally rewrite this page. Even if I can't make it perfect, I can hopefully at least make it better than what it is now (and better sourced). Anonymous 14:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Murugan Chillayah

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

Looking at the given sources:

[64] is not SIGCOV and only links him as a contact, also not independent as it's a partnership with his association
[65] and [66] do not mention him at all
[67] is IMDB
[68] is his association's official website (primary)
[69] only lists his association in a bullet list of many others, no SIGCOV
[70] is another of his websites
[71] is an interview he gave to a council his association joined, neither independent nor secondary
[72] is another SIGCOV-free bullet list
[73] doesn't mention him, and, looking at the context of how it was used, wouldn't have been independent either way
[74] is his speaker profile at an event, not independent
[75] is literally an advertisement
[76] is the same as the first source, but this time with the title of a different paragraph
[77] is yet another list with no content beyond names
[78] and [79] are open letters he helped writing, very primary
[80] gives me an error 404, but appears to be another open letter

All in all, out of 17 references, exactly zero provide secondary, independent SIGCOV, making this a very likely WP:GNG failure. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism, Malaysia, and India. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this link should work (grabbed from archive). You're right that it's just another open letter. Procyon117 (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2017 United Express passenger removal

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

No WP:LASTING effects apart of Wikipedia mirrors, thus fails WP:NOTNEWS. Protoeus (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this very easily passes the WP:LASTING test. It led to changes to USDOT rules, new legislation, and impacted United's financials and reputation into at least the medium term. Looking it up in Google Books and Google Scholar, it's an incident that continues to be very widely discussed in the fields of public relations and aviation law. I don't think this is a case of WP:NOTNEWS at all. MCE89 (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Police, Aviation, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is not the article's first nomination; a 2022 renaming makes this less obvious. The earlier discussions were not too long after the incident, attracted many comments, and were quickly closed — Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Express Flight 3411 was a SNOW closure, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Express Flight 3411 incident (2nd nomination) came too quickly after the first nomination and was a speedy keep. I'd expect a more reasonable discussion eight years later, though I myself have no opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and strongly so. This was a major news story that clearly had a WP:LASTING effect just by looking at the sources in the article. The clearest one is the NY Times article which led with the incident four years later. SportingFlyer T·C 03:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the above. Far more significance than, for example, a video game article, or even an article about a notorious crime that attracts morbid interest, but has no lasting effect. DonFB (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems pretty clear per the above votes and the impact of DOT legislation per MCE89. Also worth noting that WP:LASTING is only one guideline for establishing notability, and articles can still be notable without having inherently lasting effects (but I would argue this one has had them). - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT – Continued, significant, and in-depth coverage in secondary sources is present with lasting effects and changes existing as a result of this incident.^[1] The incident is also the subject of numerous case studies. [81] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^
- Zhang, Benjamin (13 April 2017). "United is promising to make major customer service changes". Business Insider. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
- Zhang, Benjamin (26 April 2017). "United Airlines just announced 10 major changes to avoid another violent passenger-removal incident". Business Insider. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
- Fernández, Alexia (27 April 2017). "United Airlines Announces 10 Policy Changes in Response to Passenger Removal Incident". People. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
- Zumbach, Lauren (9 April 2018). "A year after a passenger was dragged off a United flight, everyday indignities remain". The Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
- Aratani, Lori (9 April 2018). "A year after the infamous United dragging incident, has anything changed for airline travelers?". The Washington Post. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
- Bever, Lindsey (9 April 2019). "Doctor who was dragged, screaming, from United Airlines flight finally breaks silence". The Washington Post. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
- Weed, Julie (27 January 2021). "While You Weren't Looking: Revised Airline Policies May Make Flying Better". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
- Thomaselli, Rich (10 April 2022). "Five Years Later, What Have We Learned From United's Dr. Dao Dragging Incident?". TravelPulse. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
- Hartley, Kate (30 July 2024). "United Airlines passenger removal scandal – what can leaders learn?". Polpeo. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes the WP: LASTING. HeMahon (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United States of America. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 13:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above. Has coverage and has lasting effects. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 07:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Marano

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

Non-notable history denier. Few sources on google search, all of them more than 5 years old; this raises the prospect that the subject's notoriety was short-lived and has not endured. YouTube channel has fewer than 20K subscribers; most videos less than 5 years old have fewer than 500 views. There is mention in the Reuters source of one or more videos with over 300,000 views; however, it is not on the YouTube channel, and no other reference to this purported video could be located. Risker (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that the YouTube channel has a 16-year-old video, "Westboro Baptist neutralized by the Patriot Guard Riders" that has over 900K views; its SEO tags are "Patriot Guard Riders Westboro Baptist Fred Phelps gay military funeral army navy air force marines coast guard free speech propagandabuster propaganda buster tony WBC", several of which are heavily-searched terms. The article subject is not noted to have anything to do with either Westboro Baptist Church or the Patriot Guard Riders, in the article or in any reliable source that I could locate. That makes a single highly viewed video out of 2.6K videos. Risker (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, Internet, Connecticut, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this article because I need time to gather enough information about him. Beside I'm using information from Japan's wikipedia to create it. Besides he's one of the history deniers we need to worry about and avoid for non-Asians Youtubers. Besides, you can help me by translating the source citations from the Japanese wikipedia and get this issue resolved. Koreanidentity10000

Hello, Koreanidentity10000. I see you have been adding information from another project. Please read this information on how to copy information from another Wikimedia project, because you're not correctly attributing that information. Remember to include the reference sources when you are copying over the information. If it isn't referenced in that project, then it should not be coming to English Wikipedia. I will give you time to sort this out, but right now with your changes, it is now a copyright violation with poorly referenced or unreferenced material. Since this is a biography of a living person, this is a fairly big deal. Risker (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gio Talente

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

Promotional biography of a "social reputation analyst"; appears to have been constructed as WP:ADMASQ by an editor later blocked for sockpuppetry. Sources do not support notability under any criterion. They are:

WP:TRIVIALMENTION quotes in media on other topics that do not constitute WP:SIGCOV: [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88],
WP:PRIMARYSOURCE interviews: [89], [90],
Primary/affiliated sources (official bios, course descriptions, etc): [91], [92],
One source does not mention him at all: [93]

Nothing else was found in BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Italy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

El Vaquero

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

Student newspaper of one college. Relies on Primary sources. Research has found no other significant sources.Fails WP:NNEWSPAPER Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glendale Community College (California)#Student media: best I can tell, this is the standard alternative to deletion for otherwise non-notable student-run media entities. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Education, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naale (film)

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

Two unreleased films that fail to establish notability. The first film may have been unfinished, which is why it is listed here as a short film [94]. The first film was also incorrectly listed on the 2008 list of films, but the sources were emerging in mid-December 2008 and a release seemed unlikely [95].

In an attempt to salvage, the film article I added information about the second unreleased film, all passing mentions.

Additional sources assessment table

Source	Reliable?	Significant?	Notes
Indiaglitz [96]			See Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Guidelines on sources.
Filmibeat [97]

Although, I find this database site dubious [98] Kailash29792 assured me of its usefulness for Malayalam cinema. It lists all of the released films and some unreleased films. While it lists the 2017 version as unreleased (first with a pink U and then with [ പുറത്തിറങ്ങാത്ത ചിത്രം ] (transl. [Unreleased film]), it has no mention of the 2008 film, so without a doubt that film was never released. Without proper sourcing, redirect to Dileep filmography, the only page where it is mentioned. DareshMohan (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it for now. no indication of notability and yet unreleased. sources are only spreading buzz around whether it'll will release or not and other things. HeMahon (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rommy Sulastyo

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NACTOR. Two films are not on Wikipedia. Only source present is "top 10 pictures with sister" and her sister is not covered on Wikipedia either. Besides that, anything I could find is either not reliable or independent. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more sources needed and roles are not mentioned. HeMahon (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't really have the time to look into this in detail but the corresponding Indonesian article seems to show he could meet WP:NACTOR. Pinging a competent user:@Crisco 1492:, if you have time, can you let us know what you think, please? Thanks! -Mushy Yank. 23:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've reviewed what sources seem to be available, which include a short bio by a production house he's worked for; a brief overview from Tribun News, which I would expect to be WP:CIRCULAR given the general low quality of said publication; and the same profile at Pikiran Rakyat. None of the data provided indicates that he would meet the GNG or NACTOR; finalist (not winner) of Mr./Miss Jakarta 1994, a few soaps without articles, and some direct-to-TV films. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! -Mushy Yank. 23:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seacourt

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

This subject may be worthy of an article, but this writing isn’t yet an article. Nuke, draftify or something, but get it from mainspace. Qwirkle (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology, Geography, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this version is totally fine, though unremarkable. That someone added a bunch of questionably-sourced notes since doesn't change the notability here. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elli. It needs some clean up, particularly to the section on the name, but the previous version is fine and the subject seems to be notable. I don't think this is in WP:TNT territory. MCE89 (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it looks like it was a perfectly normal article before TRESISR (talk · contribs) edited it – just revert most or all of those edits, they are the source of all the weirdness and original research in this article and in another AfD. I have already cleaned up or reverted a lot of their extensive history of unsuitable edits on other articles. Joe D (t) 10:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elli. 17 years of edits can hardly lead to a conclusion that "this writing isn’t yet an article", even if some of the edits are questionable. We do not delete articles just because they need improvement. We try and improve them.--Mhockey (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I removed all of the OR per comments above. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and thanks to @LaundryPizza03: for their cleanup. PamD 11:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep it has plenty of content anyway but clearly passes GEOLAND as it was a parish in its own right even if long ago and it probably only had a parish meeting. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Morag McLaren

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

Can't find anything that suggests Morag McLaren is notable. The only source in the article is very weak. Guiy de Montfort de L'Amaury 00:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Music, Theatre, and Scotland. Guiy de Montfort de L'Amaury 00:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Dance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see plenty of coverage in the British Newspaper Archive. I'll add it and come back to vote. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Stening, Tanner (23 May 2024). "Can airplane turbulence really kill you? Aircraft propulsion expert weighs in on Singapore Airlines death". Northeastern Global News. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[2] Wee, Sui-Lee; Suhartono, Muktita (22 May 2024). "'Dropping Very Dramatically': What Deadly Turbulence Did to a Flight". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[3] Arranz, Adolfo; Kawoosa, Vijdan Mohammad; Kiyada, Sudev; Huang, Han; Zafra, Mariano; Scarr, Simon (22 May 2024). "The mechanics of turbulence". Reuters. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[4] Fallows, James (23 May 2024). "The Singapore Airlines Emergency: What Happened, and What Can We Learn?". Substack. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[5] Aragó, Laura; Sverdan, Roman; Patrick Pereira, Nikita; Liew WB, Jovin; Karla Mariano Mungcal, Alyssa; G.V, Xaquín (30 May 2024). "Singapore Airlines turbulence: What happened to SQ321?". The Straits Times. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[6] Yeo, Mike (29 May 2024). "Injuries to SQ321 crew, passengers likely caused by rapid changes in G-force, 178ft drop over 4.6sec". The Straits Times. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[7] Parker, Benjamin (24 May 2024). "Singapore changes in-flight service after death of man following extreme turbulence". The Independent. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[8] Sin, Carmen (25 May 2024). "SIA taking more cautious approach to meal service, safety measures during flight turbulence". The Straits Times. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[9] Leong, Grace (4 June 2024). "More airlines reviewing safety protocols after SQ321 incident, but no wholesale changes made: Iata". The Straits Times. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[10] Yufeng, Kok (1 August 2024). "SIA resumes meal service when seat-belt sign is on, lifts stricter rules after turbulence incident in May". The Straits Times. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[11] Cheng, Kenneth (11 December 2024). "SIA joins turbulence data-sharing platform 5 months after SQ321 flight left 1 dead, dozens hurt". The Straits Times. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[12] ttps://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/sia-joins-turbulence-data-sharing-platform-6-months-after-sq321-flight-left-1-dead-dozens-hurt

[13] ttps://www.nzherald.co.nz/travel/singapore-airlines-flight-sq321-turbulence-tragedy-could-have-been-avoided-claims-expert/RNOLPWPOEJGZLAHA7SQUZQMGJA/

[14] ttps://travelweekly.com.au/article/aussie-law-firm-accuses-singapore-airlines-of-lowballing-passengers-impacted-by-flight-321-turbulence-incident/

[15] Urquhart, Ian (2003-08-09). "They call her 'Premier Hutton'". The Toronto Star. pp. [1], [2]. Retrieved 2025-01-19.

[16] 
Zhang, Benjamin (13 April 2017). "United is promising to make major customer service changes". Business Insider. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

Zhang, Benjamin (26 April 2017). "United Airlines just announced 10 major changes to avoid another violent passenger-removal incident". Business Insider. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

Fernández, Alexia (27 April 2017). "United Airlines Announces 10 Policy Changes in Response to Passenger Removal Incident". People. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

Zumbach, Lauren (9 April 2018). "A year after a passenger was dragged off a United flight, everyday indignities remain". The Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

Aratani, Lori (9 April 2018). "A year after the infamous United dragging incident, has anything changed for airline travelers?". The Washington Post. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

Bever, Lindsey (9 April 2019). "Doctor who was dragged, screaming, from United Airlines flight finally breaks silence". The Washington Post. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

Weed, Julie (27 January 2021). "While You Weren't Looking: Revised Airline Policies May Make Flying Better". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

Thomaselli, Rich (10 April 2022). "Five Years Later, What Have We Learned From United's Dr. Dao Dragging Incident?". TravelPulse. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

Hartley, Kate (30 July 2024). "United Airlines passenger removal scandal – what can leaders learn?". Polpeo. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[17] Zhang, Benjamin (13 April 2017). "United is promising to make major customer service changes". Business Insider. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[18] Zhang, Benjamin (26 April 2017). "United Airlines just announced 10 major changes to avoid another violent passenger-removal incident". Business Insider. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[19] Fernández, Alexia (27 April 2017). "United Airlines Announces 10 Policy Changes in Response to Passenger Removal Incident". People. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[20] Zumbach, Lauren (9 April 2018). "A year after a passenger was dragged off a United flight, everyday indignities remain". The Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[21] Aratani, Lori (9 April 2018). "A year after the infamous United dragging incident, has anything changed for airline travelers?". The Washington Post. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[22] Bever, Lindsey (9 April 2019). "Doctor who was dragged, screaming, from United Airlines flight finally breaks silence". The Washington Post. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[23] Weed, Julie (27 January 2021). "While You Weren't Looking: Revised Airline Policies May Make Flying Better". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[24] Thomaselli, Rich (10 April 2022). "Five Years Later, What Have We Learned From United's Dr. Dao Dragging Incident?". TravelPulse. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[25] Hartley, Kate (30 July 2024). "United Airlines passenger removal scandal – what can leaders learn?". Polpeo. Retrieved 19 January 2025.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[1]

[1]