Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 17	February 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Josef Kleindienst

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

Per WP:SINGLEEVENT and per WP:NOTNEWS, I don't think this person fulfills notability criteria. Aŭstriano (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Police, United Arab Emirates, and Austria. Aŭstriano (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz Saati

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

WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of notability. No independent, reliable sources on the subject. Pages in other languages appear to be stubs with no reliable sourcing of their own. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, Photography, and Iran. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ifeanyi Ossai

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

The subject does not meet Wikipedia’s General Notability Guidelines or Biographies of living persons standards. There is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability.

The article appears to be a self-authored biography, violating Wikipedia's autobiography and Conflict of Interest guidelines. The sources provided are not independent or substantial enough to demonstrate lasting significance.

Per Wikipedia’s policies on notability and verifiability, this article should be deleted unless significant coverage from independent, reliable sources is presented. — bshope (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, lacks independent, significant sources. Likely self-promotional. Brandon (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated an article and still try to dubiously change your name to vote delete, it wrong and the article itself seems notable. Please cancel your delete vote. Will advice you acquite yourself with guideline before nominating an article Godovereverthing (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm unclear about the accusations being leveled here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to Bshope nominating for deletion, then also !voting delete as "Brandon" - with the edit summary "fix formatting". Initially, the nominator also used the guise "User:YourUsername" before changing it to Bshope. Geschichte (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erzhan Askarov

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

Non-notable athlete. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No good placements nor any results achieved on a high international level. Essentially a hobby part-time practitioner. Geschichte (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Kyrgyzstan. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, if the subject is an athletics Olympian in the post-Internet era, significant coverage will be written about them, which means that !voters ought to do a thorough search for these types of AfDs. If significant coverage exists, it doesn't matter how fast or slow the results are. He has been covered under his native name "Ержан Аскаров" in [1] (readers from more than 100 countries), [2], [3], [4] (use webarchive), etc. --Habst (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the above commenter has demonstrated time and time again a lack of understanding on the difference between significant and non-significant coverage. sport.kg is not significant coverage. knews.kg is even less significant coverage - it's two sentences! azattyk.org is not significant coverage, it's 21 words. The attempt to dump such sources in AFDs and pass them for something they are not, should not be condoned. Geschichte (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte, I greatly respect your work on sportsperson articles and want to come to a shared understanding so we aren't talking past each other. Per WP:BASIC which allows for combining coverage, even by your admission we have 21 words + 2 sentences + the sport.kg coverage + the 24.kg coverage, which amounts to at least a solid paragraph of known coverage in a language that we don't understand (= probably more extant sources available to those who speak the language).

Based the notability guidelines and existing practice, that seems like a pretty clear keep rationale? I'm open to other ideas and will change my !vote if there's some indication that there isn't anything else out there. --Habst (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not convinced by new sources mentioned above. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few sentences in routine announcements, most basically saying the same thing, scattered among a handful of sources is most certainly not enough for BASIC and definitively fails SPORTSCRIT. JoelleJay (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kyrgyzstan at the 2012 Summer Olympics#Athletics, where the subject is mentioned. I am not convinced the sources provided allow a pass of WP:GNG or WP:NATH/WP:NOLY. Frank Anchor 14:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kyrgyzstan at the 2012 Summer Olympics#Athletics as a valid ATD. --Enos733 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without notoriety. 201.227.220.197 (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC) Strike suspected sock of Alon9393. Geschichte (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Mood

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

Fails WP:NBAND as there are no in-depth sources describing the career of the band. They had a few chart hits but very little was written about them. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some hits in newspapers, but for the Big Band fad in the late 90s and "In the Mood", nothing about this group. One source in the article isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have identified and added citations from three WP:RS sources: a short EP review in Billboard [5], a review in Trouser Press [6], and confirmation of the UK charting [7]. Smash Hits also devoted half a page to reproducing the lyrics on one of the Moods' songs in 1982: [8]. Nothing further found yet; but I rather suspect there will be further sources offline in UK music publications not available/not yet digitised. ResonantDis_tortion 22:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gate count

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

Prodded with the rationale: "WP:DICDEF and WP:SYNTH of unrelated topics." Deprodded with the edit summary "Tech Term Used". — Anonymous 19:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. — Anonymous 19:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that the current state of the article is pretty bad but I think we can make an article about this term. This paper from NIST discusses the effects of minimizing gate count on hardware efficiency; it appears to be used in quite a bit of quantum computing literature (see here); and this book has a couple sentences about how minimizing gate count "gives a simple estimate of the implementation cost of a reversible circuit" and minimizes "area and power consumption". I don't think this is the most notable topic in the world, but sufficient sourcing does exist. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed the WP: SYNTH. That doesn't require a deletion discussion to go forward with. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, perhaps I'll withdraw in that case. My searching was not exhaustive, so I was under the (probably mistaken) impression that this was simply a generic technical term, which isn't something inherently notable. If it's something important and notable within computing (not exactly my area of expertise), then it should indeed be kept. — Anonymous 19:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep provided the named sources are added. I agree that this looks like it should squeak by the notability threshold given this material, and it looks possible that more sources may be found later. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking the subject should be merged into Digital electronics#Design_issues_in_digital_circuits, which is mostly junk right now but which really does need to address this. Mangoe (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Presidents of Guatemala

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

Duplicate of the lists on President of Guatemala and List of heads of state of the Federal Republic of Central America. Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Guatemala. Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and turn into a disambiguation page. Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to President of Guatemala#Presidents of Guatemala. What possible disambiguation page could be constructed? There are no ships, no cities, no films, etc. named President of Guatemala. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to President of Guatemala#Presidents of Guatemala as a WP:ATD. BilletsMauves^€500 14:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Mugerwa

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability not established. This appears to be a businessman, with the majority of the sources being standard company announcements. I would suggest redirecting to the notable company fOr which he's the CEO, but there is no corresponding article. The article also leans heavily on Mugerwa's local Rotary Club presidency, but that's just puffery. The article was moved to draft by a reviewer but moved back to article space by the article creator, who I strongly suspect of being a WP:UPE account. Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article relies on an unusual source, https://mugibson.com, which was also utilized by Mwakwe256 sockfarm for (probable) UPE. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. The sources are there, if barely. WP:NCREATIVE is certainly not met. 201.225.5.63 (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regular professional at work. Fails the GNG. gidonb (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Jimmy Mugerwa meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for business leaders due to his substantial impact in the oil and gas sector, finance, and corporate leadership in Uganda. He has held senior leadership roles, including:

Managing Director of Tullow Oil Uganda – Leading one of the country’s most significant oil firms.

Non-executive director in the Board of Uganda Breweries Limited – A major subsidiary of East African Breweries (EABL).

Board Chair of DFCU Bank – One of Uganda’s largest financial institutions.

Additionally, he chaired Uganda’s Presidential Investor Roundtable for Oil and Gas, an advisory role with national policy implications, demonstrating influence beyond corporate appointments.

While some sources may be standard company announcements, there are significant independent references discussing his leadership in Uganda’s economic landscape. Instead of deleting, I recommend improving the article by adding more independent media coverage and removing any promotional language. Yata Michael (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep here. What is the suggested Redirect target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Reid (entrepreneur)

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

No evidence of notability Boynamedsue (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and North Carolina. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three sources on the article this one is a local news report about a bathroom mirror that advertises and spies on people in the toilet. This one does not appear to give sigcov, as Brian Reid is not the topic of the article, but is an employee of the same. This one is an interview and therefore is not valid for establishing notability. I suspect this article may have started as either WP:COI or as a paid article.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Advertising, American football, Technology, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Scottsdale Airport collision

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

Run-of-the-mill accident and non notable RobertOwens01 (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, and United States of America. RobertOwens01 (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wdym not notable? This is Vincent Neil’s jet. Grffffff (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Vince Neil was not on board the aircraft. This is not a situation like 2008 South Carolina Learjet 60 crash where the only survivors were two people who were already established as notable enough to have biographical articles in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lean merge to Vince Neil. Appears to be a routine accident that has received slightly more coverage because a jet was owned by Neil. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A runway excursion by a private plane is a run-of-the-mill accident from an aviation point of view. Accidents are not inherently notable, per WP:EVENTCRIT #4. If Neil had been on board it might have been worth a merge, but as it is I can't see a mention in his article passing the WP:10YEARTEST. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ObserveOwl (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an accident and incidents section at Scottsdale Airport, incident itself isn't notable, but does make up some of the history of the airport. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Scottsdale Airport, section is already present. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Scottsdale Airport. Maybe copy a few refs to existing section if not present there. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different Merge/Redirect target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scottsdale Airport#Accidents and incidents as the section already exists. Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with Rosbif73 above. This might have temporary notability, but such incidences happen, but don't get much coverage after few days - Having standalone pages like this for such incidences makes it more like a newspaper. Asteramellus (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maltrata bus crash

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

Wikipedia is not for news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Mexico. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article without basis to exist. 201.227.220.197 (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC) Striking sock. Aydo h8^[contribs] 01:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see at least one editor here engage with the article content and sources rather than just offer generic phrases.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete All of these Mexican bus crashes happen, and someone writes an article based on the initial day's reports, including the Mexican president's expression of condolences, and then that's as far as things go. It might make sense to make a list article of them but one by one they seem to me to fail WP:NOTNEWS, even though at the time they tend to be widely reported because of the death tolls. Mangoe (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Monteforte Irpino bus crash

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

Wikipedia is not for news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Italy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep 40 Fatalities in a bus crash is indefinetly notable, we dont see 20+ fatality bus crashes just every day. Lolzer3k 20:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is poorly formulated and has no encyclopedic validity.201.225.4.86 (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is not cleanup. Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Italian article has several good sources that are not contemporary reporting. This subject does not fall under the WP:NOTNEWS policy. BilletsMauves^€500 20:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep if improved. I'm having trouble making sense of the dates in the Italian article's references, but it appears that this had some substantial long term interest and impact. We need this conveyed in to the English article, though; right now it's a WP:NOTNEWS offender. Mangoe (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Samarkhel

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

Quite the same rationale as of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Siege of Samarkhel: The article is possibly a WP:HOAX, with no sign of independent significant coverage and only passing mentions: The Mujahideen managed to seize Samarkhel village east of Jalalabad in the sources. Also it look likes it's a WP:SAMETYPEFORK. – Garuda ^Talk! 23:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Terrorism, Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, and United States of America. – Garuda ^Talk! 23:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The Siege of Samarkhel is the original article before someone made the “First Siege of Samarkhel” article. They deleted the entire article to make it but I luckily reverted it. AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources that mention the fighting in Samarkhel:

https://www.rebellionresearch.com/what-happened-in-the-battle-of-jalalabad

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/13/world/jalalabad-shows-its-recovery-as-siege-by-rebels-dwindles.html

However, this “siege” was part of the Battle of Jalalabad but I did not make this article. I don’t know whose idea was it to call it a “siege”. AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Amni

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

Fails notability, he won some medals in amateur non-notable competitions. his biggest achievement is a bronze in Asian Indoor Martial Arts Games which is not much notable itself. googling his name in English doesn't give much about him. Sports2021 (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marjan Amini Kaveh

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

Fails notability, apparently she won some medals in WKA competitions which belongs to amateurs. WKA is not WAKO which is the recognized international federation for kickboxing. Sports2021 (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Griffin (playwright)

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

The one source cited in an unreliable source that is similar to IMDB. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Theatre. Zeibgeist (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of reviews of his plays - he definitely meets WP:AUTHOR #3. I will add sources to the article (and more sources to the article about his play The Boys Next Door. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola W315

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

Unreferenced perma-stub. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Not hard to find capsule reviews, and even a couple of more inovlved reviews. But de regur reviews don't demonstrate notability. WP is not a catalog of Motorola products. mikeblas (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A. C. Frieden

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously unreferenced BLP about a writer, and have added three sources. One is the publisher's website, however, so not an independent source. The other two are both reviews in Kirkus. I haven't been able to find three good sources, and don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. I did find this in the Daily Herald through ProQuest, but it reads like a press release from the publisher. Tacyarg (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Senegal, and United States of America. Tacyarg (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan Khalil

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Article appears to be some sort of vanity page. Coverage from reliable sources is insufficient to warrant a standalone article, and notability still needs to be established. Page has been repeatedly recreated by the same user, which indicates a possible COI. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Pakistan. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per [9], [10], seems notable. Behappyyar (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kotaro Iba

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

Played twice in 2019, hasn't played professionally since RossEvans19 (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Premature creation, no independent significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Abass Rather

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Taabii (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. Taabii (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Mohammed Abass Rather was elected to the district development council which was the main administration/government in the period 2018-24 when there was no Legislative Assembly and the state government in Jammu and Kashmir. He was elected in the first DDC polls in 2020 and hence he was the elected representative of the main administration/government in the state (leave the central government) in 2020-24 period. The elected DDC are still active now. Currently the MLAs are also members of DDCs. I want to indicate that MLAs are DDC members are members of same administrative body or body of governance. Hence it can pass WP:NPOL. Besides, he is the state secretary of CPI(M), a national party in India. By the way, proposal for draftifying or improvement of a newly created article can be much better option than proposing directly for deleting it. XYZ 250706 (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sig cov. Fails WP:GNG also not elected to any legislative body and being having a post in a party not inherently make him notable unless having sig. cov. In independent sources, fails WP:NPOL TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the District Development Council is not an NPOL pass, then this is a delete. But I'm not 100% sure. SportingFlyer T·C 23:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL#1 and NPOL#2 as there are no sources that merits the general notability criteria. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shunsuke Ota

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

Played once in the Emperor's Cup, hasn't played professionally since RossEvans19 (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG also no significant coverages. AgerJoy talk 18:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reason to exist, creator is globally locked. Geschichte (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KAD ICT Hub

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

Promotional article for a non-notable, WP:MILL local tech training facility. Sources are promotional and often unbylined churnalism ([11], [12], [13]), WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs ([14], [15]), an article based entirely on an interview with the subject's founder, and an affiliated testimonial. Nothing else qualifying came up in a WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Technology, and Nigeria. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see how this pass WP:ORGCRIT from the current sources and a cursory search. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don’t agree with the assessment that this article from TechpointAfrica is an unbylined churnalism at all but I’ve found myself on the delete !vote because I was unable to find more sources. I’d be willing to change my !vote if more sources are found. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Civil engineering software

AfDs for this article:

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

This article reads like an essay. There are some citations, but the subjects are sufficiently disjoint that the decision to put all of these topics in one article does not seem appropriate to me. I'm fine with merging some content into different articles, but from an organizational perspective, I think the existence of this article is confusing and makes it harder for readers to find the information they need. The decision to talk about all of these topics in one article seems like a violation of WP: OR to me, because no one source discusses all of these different subjects. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I read the previous AfD before nominating this article. Sourcing is an issue here, but I'm more concerned with the fact the article covers topics that are relatively disjoint but are vaguely related to "civil engineering software". HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 11 February 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!} 16:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the topic is broad and WP:TNT would be a better option here. I doubt any information here isn't already present on the wiki under their engineering topics. It doesn't even provide examples of software like MATLAB. – The Grid (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Moon Records

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfDed before. Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and no indication of notability. AgerJoy talk 18:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched newspapers.com and only found two cursory mentions, 1 in article about Hometown Anthems in Clifton Journal and 1 in article about All Time Low (ALT) in Baltimore Sun. Also found a book about ALT (ISBN: 9781786062970) where subject is mentioned a handful of times, but seems to only be in the context of the band. Taking the sources together (including those already in article), I don't see any that definitively checks all 4 boxes per WP:SIRS. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Characters of Touhou Project

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

was literally right about to blar it to start working on a draft, but it might be better to play it safe and take it here. as is, i think starting over might be the best option, as there is literally not a single reliable source to be found in the list. this isn't even a tattoo assassins case, where the article is small enough that even i could handle it, it's nearly everyone in the franchise. as is, i support draftifying, userfying, or blarring, with mild opposition to plain ol' deletion. blarring? blar'ing? blaring? what's the preferred gerund? consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 15:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, Anime and manga, and Japan. consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 15:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In most cases, I'd probably say that deletion is not cleanup, but I simply do not think there is anything worth preserving here. To try and solidify my points, I did a BEFORE search on Reimu, Marisa, Reisen, and Koishi, the first two of which are the most prominent characters in the series and the other two are just random ones I chose. None of them have any results on google from reliable sources. Maybe there's some coverage of these characters from non-English sources, particularly for Reimu, but with how niche and globally irrelevant Touhou Project is beyond a niche community, I would be damned if there are any reliable sources for every single character in the franchise, let alone even two of them. And I did run a couple of searches using some of the characters' Japanese names; I obviously don't speak Japanese, but from what I could tell every source I ran into at first glance was either an artwork-hosting site or advertising a fumo or another figure. I could definitely be wrong and maybe there are some sources for these characters somewhere, but at present: the prose is terrible, there's no reliable sources, and substantial trimming would be required for this article to even be near an acceptable state. There is basically nothing here to preserve. My vote is to delete this entirely, but I suppose I'd be fine with draft-ification. λ NegativeMP1 16:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NegativeMP1 sorry for the ping, who was the third character? pc98 raymoo? consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 17:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant Reisen, my bad. λ NegativeMP1 17:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
holy crap lois it's the wed rabbit consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 17:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

on a more serious note, the ones i have some faith of reaching gng if i look hard enough are reimu, marisa, yuuka, everyone in eosd besides rumia, daiyousei, and koakuma, yukari (specifically due to her appearance in aocf), sanae, suwako, koishi (tantanpou!), doremy, clownpiece, and hecatia. most are due to their memetic potential in japan, though some genuine arguments could be made for the main duo and clownpiss

the ones i only really think might have a couple tidbits are chen, yuyuko, reisen, satori, unzan (and his hitbox i guess), nue, mamizou, junko (yes, ddc gets skipped entirely), and yuuma

i really don't think the rest stand much of a chance, or that this would mean anything in the context of arguments to keep this list. it's mostly self-reminders to look into those, and maybe also into reimu's increasingly long gohei consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 17:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Touhou_Project#Characters. I thought this could be saved by showing it meets WP:NLIST (of course, it needs much shortening, it is a gigantic plot summary, with many entries completely unreferenced). However, I failed to find a single RS that covers this topic (characters of TP). Do ping me if anyone finds a WP:RS covering this, and I'll reconsider my vote. For now, we have a valid redirect target (a section in the main article). It is short and unreferenced, and could benefit from some refs present here (even if we were just referencing some plot summary). Would be nice if we could find a RS that would at least say who are the main TP characters, sigh. PS. When I say merge, I mean few sentences, maybe a few paragraphs, as I concur that 99% of what we have here is poorly referenced WP:FANCRUFT (but there is no harm keeping in the history of the redirect). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Piotrus. It definitely needs trimmed description, though. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lorstaking (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
unrelated to the actual discussion and not an indicator of me agreeing or disagreeing with this, but i love "do thing nom opposes per nom" votes. they're probably the funniest thing that can happen in an xfd venue consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 14:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Snow

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

So after discovering this article, I wanted to do a hard dive into sources on it. However, upon digging...there's really next to nothing. Several articles are addressing the fact people thought she was a new character in Marvel Rivals, but they are carbon copies of one another: explaining the character's origin and usage, with no reception or discussion about her as a character itself. This article from Polygon felt like the strongest source, and what got my interest piqued to check for more, but even it barely discusses her, and is more about Iron Fist's redesign and Rivals.

Scholar also turned up nothing. She's a character in a vacuum, and while I'd rather be proven wrong I just can't find anything through a thorough WP:BEFORE to indicate she's notable. Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Comics and animation. Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no immediate comment on deletion yet, but I am opening the possibility of a list of Marvel Rivals characters (comparable to the Overwatch one) given that they have spoken about including less well-known characters from the Marvel cannon, where notability outside of the game is unlikely. Most of the heroes in Rivals are notable before the game (even Jeff) but I am sure we'll see more. — Masem (t) 16:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if a list is really necessary compared to a table in the game's article for now, but once the cast grows I could see it as a good idea to do such a list.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep [16] [17] [18] [19] (game guides can still qualify as SIGCOV as long as the article itself is not) as well as the other sources shown in the article, make me feel like this character is probably notable on her own. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is sufficient coverage such as MSN, DEXERTO, Kotaku, Polygon, TechRadar etc. Drushrush (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per 4 sources above. AgerJoy talk 18:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Drushrush: @Zxcvbnm: @AgerJoy: While gameguide material can be used to establish character notability, it still needs to assert some importance outside of the game itself i.e. players being attacked for using Symmetra in Overwatch for how poor hers was or outright using her a troll pick to frustrate players. None of that is indicated here. There is also next to no discussion of the character as a fictional character outside of the Polygon article above, which is what we should be aiming for first and foremost. One needs to consider what the sources are saying for WP:SIGCOV, not that they simply exist.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I do my best to look for any angle to justify an article's creation, but here, I find it uncompelling that all the sources are a combination of game guide discussion and/or offer limited commentary. I don't think it's a weak article situation, I've seen worse, but I would be more comfortable if there were stronger articles to cite. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Lal

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

Nomination : Becoming the president/general secretary of a political party’s state or national unit does not inherently confer notability. Besides no interesting fact other than serving as BJP general secretary for 13 years is added. The subject fails the notability test for politicians, and of course WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. For all these reasons, this article should be deleted. User:XYZ 250706 (User talk:XYZ 250706) 15:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: {{subst:afd2}} was not actually implemented here, resulting in incomplete formatting; I have fixed this. No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete– Per nom, being the president or general secretary of a political party doesn't make him notable. The sources are just announcements or brief mentions, with no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. EmilyR34 (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe Thailand 2025

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

Unreferenced disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT prohibits a unilateral return to draft. Fails WP:V, is WP:TOOSOON 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Events, and Thailand. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if necessary: I would have draftified this myself. But if procedures prohibit re-draftification, I think this is the only way to prevent presentation of an unreferenced article to the readers. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:V and unsourced stuff. AgerJoy talk 17:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S. S. Minnow

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

Fictional ship from TV show Gilligan's Island. Very weak, almost non-existent WP:GNG. The article is a plot summary with a single nod to reality outside the fact that it appears in that show, i.e. a brief comment that someone bought the ship, is restoring it and planning to use it as a local tourist attraction. My BEFORE yielded nothing except plot summaries. The best I can suggest is WP:ATD-R to the TV show. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Transportation, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gilligan's Island. Most of the info is unsourced, so there isn't much to merge. Perhaps the very last bit about the boat being restored could make a one-sentence addition to the GI article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with a selective merge, as suggested. Bearian (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted after a "redirect" closure following a talk page request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No need for merge. Gilligan's Island already has a section talking about the ship under Production. Maineartists (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gilligan's Island. — Maile (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but just for a three-hour tour, a three-hour tour. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for sure!, meets GNG per things like this article from just a few days ago, January 29 and per historical significance. The SS Minnow is one of the most famous ships in television, it is a known cultural reference-point for maybe two generations of Americans. With this strong attachment to early television history, backed by reputable sources both on the page and found during this discussion, having the Minnow afloat on Wikipedia, and keeping it within Wikipedia's fictional ship collection, seems to maintain the encyclopedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources would help. Saying WP:ITSNOTABLE does not. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. A source was linked in my comment, just above. I've added it and also a second Canadian Broadcasting Corporation source to the article (the page already contained one CBC source). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We have two sources now which seem reliable. I am not sure if this is enough, that's bare minimum at best, considering it's just "niche news", but it's no longer as bad as it was before, when we had nothing. Feel free to ping commenters who recommended redirect above - maybe consensus can change. Right now I am neutral. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/soft Merge Redirect to Gilligan's Island and add/merge anything not already posted there to save that work. ContentEditman (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Randy Kryn; very much liable to have 1960s newspaper sources available too that aren't easy to access online. I think this is a reasonable spinoff from Gilligan's Island and almost all of the content that could be included in this article would be undue to include in the main article. J 947 ‡ ^edits 22:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gilligan's Island. No need for a separate article with only derivative notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have reopened and relisted this again after a further talk page discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a fun source, seems the ship just keeps coming back (both in real life and here). Does this count? It's a local news site but is a well-written and likely well-researched article. And here's a source, a podcast, from the Vancouver Island Free Daily. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And this one too. In seriousness, the topic centered on the actual boats seems to have good and semi-plentiful sources, and arguably meets GNG as a stand-alone page topic which covers both the boat and its use as a named vessel and prop within the television series, the subsequent films, and as a tourism attraction. Sources also cover it as a boat that occasionally washes ashore or into a harbor - the Flying Dutchman of TV props. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hayes Warner

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because their music exists, and have to show certain specific markers of achievement supported by WP:GNG-worthy third party coverage about them in reliable sources -- but the only notability claim being attempted here is that she "had breakout success", with absolutely no concrete measures of success (chart positions, awards, etc.) quantified at all to show that she would meet any of the criteria in NMUSIC, and two of the three footnotes are a Q&A interview in which she's answering questions about herself in the first person, and a puff piece in an unreliable music PR blog that isn't support for notability at all.
There's just one acceptable piece of GNG-worthy coverage in a fully reliable source cited here at all -- but even it doesn't really verify any specific achievements that would pass NMUSIC, and just amounts to "emerging musician releases single", so it isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's all she's got for reliable sourcing.
Just existing isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to achieve something that would pass NMUSIC, or from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This musician does not simply exist. Her music is played on radio stations around the country (which is how I know of her). She has also appeared on multiple programs that cover artists. This is just the infancy of notability this artist is rapidly gaining. The existing sources, though sparse, are valid and reliable. And the number of them can only go in one direction from this point.Thatkindagurl (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We need evidence of airplay. If she has airplay on major radios she may meet WP:MUSICBIO. Darkm777 (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is evidence of airplay. This station plays her frequently. Most recent play at 7:18 PM EST on 2/10. [20]. This meets criteria #11 of WP:SINGER. Thatkindagurl (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I just voted keep as I have found some more articles on her. Darkm777 (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nom covered it pretty well, there's just not enough WP:SIGCOV for it. Wouldn't be opposed to a draftify in case she becomes more notable in the future though. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 23:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have improved the article and added new citations that I found. She has several articles such as in Us Magazine, Grammy.com and Earmilk. She qualifies.Darkm777 (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' per WP:HEY, based upon the rescue by Darkm777. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It’s close but appears to pass muster. Go4thProsper (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow for more discussion of the improvements
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is sufficient coverage such as MSN, The 360 Mag, Headline Planet, HoneyPop, The 360 Mag etc. Drushrush (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Potential American ownership of the Gaza Strip

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

Violation of WP:G4; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States proposed takeover of the Gaza Strip. I'm not going to PROD it because it might be controversial but I don't see why this article shouldn't be speedy deleted. DecafPotato (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Palestine, and United States of America. DecafPotato (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 February 13#United States proposed takeover of the Gaza Strip. Perhaps draftify until that discussion is finished, after which it will either need deletion or merging probably. Fram (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G4 or immediately draftify given the ongoing DRV. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Page describes a widely reported on event that may affect millions and millions of people and push the Middle East into a new epoch of conflict. The fact that such proposals are being seriously suggested by the president of America makes it noteworthy. If we are not miring ourselves in controversy over the existence of the Proposed United States acquisition of Greenland there is no reason to delete this. Genabab (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. When the original article is (very likely) restored it will make sense for this to be merged into it. We don't want to lose this before that can happen. No objection to it being draftified in the meantime, so long as it isn't lost. I do not believe that there is any conspiracy to delete articles on this 100% unarguably valid subject but the number of AfDs is sure giving conspiracists a lot of ammunition that we didn't need to give them. Please can we just stop punching ourselves in the face? BTW, there is absolutely no reason to believe that this article was created with intent to circumvent the AfD. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with same arguments as I (and others) expressed in the other AfD and at the deletion review. To summarize, there is no secondary coverage of this proposal at this point. All the coverage amounts to "Trump said this, other people said this in response", or small bits of "context" (such as what some random "expert" said about international law). Per WP:NEWSPRIMARY, this is not secondary coverage, nor should it be considered secondary coverage at this time. The article can be recreated in the future if the proposal progresses to a point where there is actual secondary coverage of it, rather than just breaking "Trump said this" news reporting. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No secondary coverage? It's getting wall-to-wall secondary coverage from the media. It is destabilising the whole middle-east. There is extensive analysis of the humanitarian, legal and political ramifications, none of them good. Sure, the takes are still somewhat hot but lots of reliable sources are covering this as far more than a one-off news event. Believe me, I'd love nothing more than for this to all melt away like a bad dream but that's not going to happen. The article is a little scrappy but maybe it would have a better chance to mature if we didn't keep on trying to delete it. DanielRigal (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the link I posted. Merely reporting on the news is not secondary coverage. Merely repeating/parroting what "experts" say is not secondary coverage. Secondary coverage requires actual analysis and commentary by the source, not just collecting what Trump said and how people responded to it. The wall to wall coverage amounts to "Trump said this, this is what others said in response". That is not secondary coverage. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And it is very clear that if that is the case, it is because of how the page is formatted. That is not grounds to delete it but to revise it. Genabab (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about the page. It's about whether the references count as "secondary" for the purposes of GNG. They do not, because those references are all "Trump said this, others said/did this" - primary reporting. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would a secondary reference look like to you in this instance? EucalyptusTreeHugger (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - it might just be an assorted Trump utterance but if we have an article about Covfefe, surely a potential plan to take over the Gaza Strip that has received significant secondary coverage and comment from locals and governments / organisations all over the world is worth keeping around. Meets and exceeds WP:GNG, besides. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until when/if official government plans begin. Did we not learn from the Vietnam War that the only thing likely to happen, is involving a generation of Americans (and other nations) in an armed conflict over something that was never our business in the first place. — Maile (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep but rename Proposed American ownership of the Gaza Strip. It's never going to happen, unless Mexico has promised to pay for the enormous cost of relocating MILLIONS of Gazan residents, Atlantis is going to provide the land, and magically construct hundreds of thousands of houses, schools, hospitals, workplaces, etc. and Gazans actually want to move, but it has gotten media coverage from people who should know better. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Ownership" is a word to avoid. The legality of any alleged "ownership" is going to be very widely disputed and our title should not implicitly endorse it. The previously deleted title was better although I'm not saying that it was the best possible. I suspect that it will require further discussion. DanielRigal (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The event has received sustained coverage so far, and very likely it will continue to be referred in the future in various documentaries, yearbooks etc. The title may need to be changed, though. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete In the first place, the article title is blatantly non-neutral, and it's also now a fork given that the previously deleted article points somewhere else where the matter is treated succinctly. This does not manage that; Wikipedia needs actual editors who can cut these things down to size, not just writers. And yes, there is the WP:RECENTISM issue of whether this is going to be something that festers for a long time, for the US actually does something concrete about, or it's simply another off-the-wall Trump thing which can take its place in the ever-lengthening list of off-the-wall Trump things which came to nought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangoe (talk • contribs) 03:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe How is the title non-neutral? Genabab (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but at one of the previous titles. This proposal is not dying out, and is the subject of massive and sustained analysis in tonnes of independent secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 14:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha DT200

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

Fails WP:N - could not find significant independent sources. Also, the majority of the page is on specifications, which fails WP:NOTSTATS. LR.127 (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. LR.127 (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dead American Radio

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, article has had maintenance tag for needing additional citations for more than ten years. HorrorLover555 (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found about this album; hits on dead radio personalities or other phrases with similar words. The Allmusic listing is the only source in the article, not quite enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warith Al Maawali

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

Fails WP:BLP, I have cleaned out of the article a string of sources that are press-release or come from bad newspapers. Most of the sources only mention Warith Al Maawali and fully describe the company. There's a risk of a WP:COI editor. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Oman. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
note *note the article was reviewed by editor FULBERT today, as was my other article Kentucky Blood Center. Both were immediately nominated for deletion by an editor who has not written any articles of his own. I will ask checkuser to investigate the situation Pollia (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seahorse (software)

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

Barely any reference or notability. Greatder (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Greatder (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are a few independent articles separate from GNOME sources, including [21]. Meets WP:SOFT#Inclusion 1 and 4, since it is also in many notable Linux review sites. Peace, Thorn6130✝ (talk, ask questions, dispute) 14:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thorn6130 Just like user raccoon said below, itsfoss was deemed not a quality source by the wikiproject on foss some time ago. Greatder (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although itsfoss.com isn't really a reliable source, I found some lengthy tutorials about Seahorse in published books: [22] [23]. Should be enough for WP:SOFT. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Helpful Raccoon Are tutorials enough to pass that? No proper independent assessment of the software? Greatder (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip (software)

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

Barely any reference or notability. Mention me on any reply. Greatder (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Greatder (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Greatder, dosen't have enough cited notability for WP:SOFT#Inclusion. Search results return mainly information from GNOME, the Linux desktop environment it was developed under.

Peace, Thorn6130✝ (talk, ask questions, dispute) 13:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/delete Maybe useful in its times but no sources from what we see as generally notable citations from the industry. NatalieTT (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: @Greatder: the only independent coverage I could find is a single sentence in this book, nowhere near satisfying WP:NSOFT. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Blood Center

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

Just mere mentions in the press. And the media sources in the article are not notable enough WP:RSPSOURCES. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
note the article was reviewed by editor FULBERT today, as was my other article Warith_Al_Maawali. Both were immediately nominated for deletion by an editor who has not written any articles of his own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollia (talk • contribs) 20:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz (DC Thomson)

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

I redirected based on there being only a database source. This was undone, and a new source (this book) was added. That book comes from an author and publisher who do not seem to be notable as I can barely find any info on either, and the book itself appears to be full of reprinted comics and no valuable prose. There's also little to suggest notability of this subject, nor the few bluelinked strips listed here. This appears to be a subject of very niche interest, and probably not something that would've gotten a ton of coverage. I would stick with the redirect to The Topper (comics). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and United Kingdom. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a short running comic (not even 2 years starting in 1973) but it was being reprinted (and advertised on the front cover) as part of Classic of the Comics up until 2010. That's near 40 (not continuous) years as part of national publications. I know the source I added isnt the best but its more than just reprinted comics, its a complete index of the Topper comic that Buzz merged into. I'm going to have a look for more sources. Eopsid (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more sources, I think there are more out there in other books. Eopsid (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kibble-White's Ultimate Book of British Comics has something like 4 pages on it, Gifford's Character Encyclopedia probably covers half-a-dozen plus strips (with his two catalogues possibly good for the odd cite), it might be covered in Cadogan's DCT book (been a while since I read that one) and all of this is without bothering to look at any specialist magazines - Crikey! almost certainly ran at least one article on it. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if it absolutely has to be redirected somewhere because people don't like comics, the list of DC Thomson publications makes a lot more sense than to The Topper, which is just confusing. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Topper seems like a fine target to me since Buzz was merged into it, and that merger is mentioned in The Topper's lead. List of D. C. Thomson & Co. Ltd publications only mentions the name and years of publication, so it's less valuable in terms of how much information is supplied. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha (Julia Ducournau film)

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

WP:TOOSOON. Should be moved back to DRAFT, at least until a release date is announced. Currently it says " release date has not been announced but is expected in 2025 or 2026". DonaldD23 talk to me 21:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, France, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is totally erroneous. Firstly, the nominator did not address the usual question of whether the topic meets GNG—It does (it has not been argued that it doesn't, so there's no need for me to go into detail here, and the article speaks for itself). A film that is unreleased could mean that a WP:NFF activates so as to indicate that the film cannot meet WP:NFILM, and, potentially, that the article is WP:CRYSTAL, but that is not the case here. Namely, only films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, while unreleased films that have been filmed, like the subject film, are definitely eligible for normal notability considerations. The CRYSTAL problem is not there because the facts included in the article are stable and will continue to be relevant when the film is released. For example, the noteworthy fact that an actor lost 20 kilograms for his role does not depend on the film's release.—Alalch E. 22:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't unusual for actors to change their appearance for a role. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Production having "unusual" features or not is not the point; the point is the existence of reliable independent sources covering it. Notability and singularity are two different things. -Mushy Yank. 23:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is the point, "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." There's nothing notable about the production of this film itself. What's described in the draft is all routine coverage that would render WP:NFF meaningless if applied to all such articles. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. The fact that you don't find it "notable" (=unusual) is NOT the point. Sources covering various aspects of production exist and that is the point. -Mushy Yank. 10:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That interpretation would render WP:NFF meaningless, so are you going to propose its removal? 331dot (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is not an interpretation and is pretty standard (your comment, on the other hand, ("notable=unusual") is one) and what I say does not render NFF, as it is, "meaningless", no (what you are saying, on the other hand, would imply to change it). I have no further comment, I am afraid. -Mushy Yank. 11:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not changing anything, just going by what NFF plainly says. If casting annoucements and coverage of other routine announcements by the makers of a film render the film notable, NFF doesn't exclude much as all films do that. Not trying to solicit a reply from you. Best wishes. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not why I said that the topic is notable, it is the durability and lasting noteworthiness of this fact, taken as an example, and the same goes for other statements in the article, which means that the material is not CRYSTAL material, and does not need to stop being live for that reason. —Alalch E. 23:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(The fundamental problem with articles about unreleased films (and upcoming events and forthcoming works in general) is that there is nothing or very little to say in the article which will still be true, relevant, and worth noting when the film is released—it should be judged on a case-by-case basis; this problem does not exist here.) —Alalch E. 23:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even though the film is upcoming and even if it was never released, coverage in reliable sources (casting, filming, topic, acting) is imv sufficient to establish notability. -Mushy Yank. 22:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. This fails WP:NFF. There's nothing unusual about the production of this film. It doesn't even have a specific release date. There's nothing that says "unreleased films that have been filmed" are notable. Theoretically it could never be released. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's never released, we'll add a sentence or two about how and why this notable unreleased film about which we know XYZ was not released. And add it to Category:Unreleased films —Alalch E. 23:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are sources that describe why it is unreleased. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At a bare minimum this shouldn't be in mainspace until there is a release date. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as I was the one that approved the AfC, but to share my reasoning: While WP:NFF is correct as a general principle, in this case I think the production is noteworthy enough to merit an article, due to the anticipation of Ducournau's work. Reviewing similar pages, many similar films have been created by experienced editors around the time that filming begins or is completed, assuming that there are sufficiently many references to support notability, which is the case here. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, you didn't "approve the AFC", you edited the draft and then moved it into the encyclopedia yourself, it wasn't submitted for another AFC review. You can do that- just saying. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's correct. I was using the AfC script and felt the article was improvable with a bit of work. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: WP:TOOSOON indeed. Please tag with the apropriate "Do not move this to main article space until..." tag for films. UtherSRG (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this article after noticing Alpha listed in Julia Ducournau’s filmography on Wikipedia. Curious about its details, I researched the film and found sources such as World of Reel and Fangoria, but both appeared to be poorly sourced translations. To ensure accuracy, I compiled properly sourced details from reliable French publications, making this Wikipedia entry the most precise English-language resource available on the film's premise.
The article is not WP:CRYSTAL because it is built on verifiable information rather than speculation. WP:NFF does not apply here, as the film has completed principal photography, and significant coverage exists in reliable sources. Even if the film were never released, its production and premise have already garnered notable discussion, making it a valuable topic of record.
Additionally, per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, rules exist to support Wikipedia’s mission as an educational resource. In this case, removing the article would eliminate one of the only well-sourced English-language references on the film, counteracting that mission. As such, the article should remain.Scombridae (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about NFF says that the completion of principal photography merits an article on the film. If it did, it would render NFF meaningless. IAR is not a blank check to do whatever we want. If trade publications like Variety are writing about this film, it's not true that this is "the only English language reference"- nor is it our responsibility to promote this film in English for those that make it. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the confusion—I should have been clearer. When I referred to "the only English language reference," I meant in the context of the basic outline of the plot, not in terms of overall coverage or trade publications. I see how this could have been interpreted incorrectly.

I completely understand the importance of following guidelines, and I recognize that IAR is not a justification for bypassing them. However, keeping the article in place rather than deleting it provides a more practical path for improvement. Articles that remain accessible in mainspace are more likely to be expanded by contributors, whereas moving them to draft or deleting them entirely creates additional barriers to collaboration. If more coverage is expected in the near future, maintaining the article allows for incremental development rather than requiring a complete restart.

Additionally, this article already contains as much, if not more, information than some existing 2026 film articles, such as SOULM8TE, 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple, Mercy (2026 film), and Flowervale Street. These articles remain in mainspace despite being at similar or earlier stages of development. Since additional sources will likely emerge as the film’s development progresses, keeping the article allows for a more structured and continuous improvement process. With ongoing updates and verifiable sources, it can develop into a well-supported entry that aligns with similar articles at this stage. Scombridae (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can only speak to the article in front of me, not others that I have not yet examined. The existence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate has no bearing on this one, see other stuff exists. It only means that volunteers haven't gotten around to addressing them yet. Each article or draft is considered on its own merits.

"Additional sources will likely emerge" is WP:CRYSTAL. The desire to draw attention for improvement would justify including any and all drafts in mainspace. You or anyone is free to solicit help on, say Wikipedia:WikiProject Films. I don't think the article should be deleted, only that it should be in draft until much closer to the release date- which we don't even have yet. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I haven't made a decision yet, but I did want to throw my two cents into the ring. I get where both sides are coming from, but when deciding notability you need to consider two things for unreleased films:

How in depth is the existing sourcing? Is it based on press releases? Are the sources all saying the same general things? How much discussion is out there?
If everything ground to a halt today and nothing was ever said about this film ever again other than an offhand mentioned that it was indefinitely shelved (or not even that), would there be enough to show where the film is notable?

Something to be careful of nowadays is that even though media outlets are selective and picky, there's also a lot of WP:CHURNALISM out there. For films, this tends to translate into media outlets rehashing the same press release or single item update without really doing any discussion or reporting on the topic. So while it might seem like there's a ton of coverage there really isn't since all of the media outlets are either reprinting the press release wholesale or slightly rewording it. This is particularly visible with India related film topics, but it can also be seen with other countries as well.

I'm not saying that this is what is happening here - but I will say that the Filmnation source looks to be a rephrasing of the Deadline source that is already used in the article. The Filmnation source doesn't really add anything new so I'm not sure why we're including that when we can just reuse the Deadline source that Filmnation rewrote into their own words. The Variety source is pretty much the same thing. We don't need three sources saying basically the same thing to establish that film rights were picked up - one will suffice in this area. That doesn't show a depth of coverage, which is what is needed here to establish notability. Again. Not saying this film doesn't pass NFF, but having a ton of sourcing doesn't really matter much if they're all saying the same thing without any sort of discussion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a rundown of the sources.

Screen Daily: About the film distribution rights. A short announcement that Charades and FilmNation will be looking for buyers.
Deadline: This is an announcement that distribution rights have been picked up. Not a bad source - but as I mentioned before one of the issues is that there are other sources in the article that just reword this.
Normandie Images: This is primary, as this organization helped support the film.
Frakas: Database listing, trivial at best.
Mubi: Another database.
Numero: A good source, but it looks to be pre-filming as it gives an announcement that the film will release and cast, but doesn't mention that filming was started or completed.
Variety: Good, but it's an announcement that the distributors are looking for buyers. It's more in-depth than the Screen Daily source, but both sources pretty much say the same thing. We don't really need the SD source since everything there is said here - more than likely one copied from the other or they're based on the same press release. They even use the same quotes.
Hollywood Reporter: Another announcement of sales - suffers from the same issue of not saying anything different than Variety of SD.
Paris Select Book: This doesn't really cover anything that wasn't already in the Numero source. Like that source, this is about casting and doesn't really mention anything about filming.
l'Eveil: This is about filming. It's lengthy and in depth. This is good.
Allocine: Database listings. The question about this is basically... why do we need so many database listings? This just backs up the projected release date - which is already backed up by other sources, one of which is another database. We don't need two databases to back up a date claim - of note the l'Eveil source doesn't seem to mention anything about a release date.
Les Inrockuptibles: Announcement that the film will release and is in production. It's not really saying anything that the other film announcements haven't already said.
Chaos Reign: This pretty much just states the same thing as the other announcement sources state.
AwardsWatch: An announcement that the film rights were purchased.
76 Actu: This is good - it's a little concerning that it does seem to be similar to what l'Eveil has written, but it's just slightly different enough that it might not be an issue.
76Actu: An extra casting announcement. This is actually something different than the other casting announcements, so this is good and usable.
AlloCine: This is about casting but it at least gives something different than the prior announcements that so and so was cast in the film.
Variety: Another announcement that the film rights were picked up.
FilmNation: Primary.

Looking at the sourcing, I would say that this could potentially pass NFF but the biggest issue here is that we have a lot of sources that are either unnecessary or they look to be pretty heavily based on the same press releases. We don't really need 4 sources that talk about the film rights being purchased - one will do, as they all generally say the same thing. Same thing goes for the film rights being put up for sale - there are two sources for this when one will do. Other than that, a lot of the casting announcements are pretty repetitive.

The issue with NFF and what makes it so hard to pass is that it's not just a case of having a lot of coverage for the production process. You also have to show a depth of coverage, which can't really be established with 4-5 sources that are basically reworded from the same press release. To be honest, the use of redundant citations actually makes me wonder how notable the production actually is as far as NFF goes at the end of the day. It kind of feels like a bunch of citations have been jammed in to give off the appearance of notability rather than to help establish notability. The overuse of databases doesn't help in that regard either.

I still haven't made up my mind as far as notability goes. Like I said, this looks like it might pass NFF but right now this is suffering from a form of WP:OVERCITE. Offhand I'll say that this film will almost certainly release and gain notability, but of course that's not a guarantee - and we shouldn't be basing our arguments on the future as there are a good many films that people assumed would release but didn't, like the Batgirl film. I'm going to try to boil down the citations to the essentials - I'm not planning on removing anything other than perhaps unnecessary primary or database sources, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that none of the sources used to back up the 2026 projected release date actually mention 2026 in it at all. I'm going to remove the mention of 2026 - honestly, when I was looking at the sources I wasn't really looking at whether or not it backed up the claims, but rather if it was redundant to other sourcing. Please avoid doing this, as it can really backfire as far as establishing notability goes, particularly when it's already in question. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2026 release date is mentioned in 76Actu article.

Here's the quote:

La sortie de ce long-métrage est prévue entre fin 2025 et début 2026. In English: The release of this feature film is scheduled between late 2025 and early 2026.

If the film were never released after shooting, given its high-profile director, that would be notable in itself—similar to Golden (unfinished film). The film will be notable one way or another, whether it is completed or not. The question then becomes: is there any downside to keeping the article in mainspace for now?

Additionally, it might be important to mention that Alpha was developed under the Villa Albertine Residency Program a division of the French Embassy in the United States from April to July 2023. Scombridae (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did find it in one of the other sources and re-added it to the article - I just neglected to mention it here. However my issue was this: of the three sources used to back up the claim (one of which was cited twice for the 2026 claim), two of them were routine database listings. I'll be honest in that it really wasn't a great look for the article, as it gave off the impression that someone was citation stuffing - adding citations (whether they are usable for establishing notability or not) in hopes that it would make the article look more notable than it might not otherwise be. That might not have been the intent, but it's how it can come across and why it's so direly important to make sure that one uses the best possible sources and that the citations back up the claims.

Now for the film's director, keep in mind that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Even with exceptionally notable persons like Stanley Kubrick, there's the expectation that there will be ample coverage to establish notability. (IE, if someone is so notable that any of their projects is notable by association, then coverage of that project would of course exist.)

As far as future notability goes, we can't guarantee that. There are many, MANY films that have been cancelled prior to release, some of which even completed production - as you can see at List of abandoned and unfinished films. Now, sometimes there will be enough coverage to pass NFF, but in many cases there's not. (And looking at some of the films, at least one of those with an article looks like it might actually fail NFF and need to be redirected somewhere.)

To be clear, my goal with all of this isn't to have the article deleted. If it was, I'd have made a firm declaration with my rundown of everything. My point is that we don't really have a great depth of coverage here. We aren't arguing on future notability, we're trying to determine if the film is notable enough to pass even if the film never releases. In other words, I don't want the article to be at risk of someone nominating it in a year's time (assuming it never gets released) and it failing AfD - which has absolutely happened in the past. That's why I'm being so particular - we can't guarantee that this will release and we need to be able to show firmly where this production is notable. I'm looking at this with the mindset of "assume it's cancelled and no one will ever discuss it again - is there enough here in the present to pass NFF". I just really would like there to be more coverage that goes into depth or at least has more discussion of the process. It's just that it's so painfully obvious that many of the sources are based on the same press release as they hit the same beats, mention the same quotes, and so on without really featuring anything that would come across as the journalist's impression on what is known of the film thus far. A depth of coverage isn't shown by many news articles saying essentially the same thing - it's established by showing where the topic is actually discussed and chewed over by the journalists. Again, I'm not arguing for a delete (or a keep) here. Just that I'm not really comfortable with how generally light everything is. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ReaderofthePack: Very helpful breakdown of the sources on this, thanks! And thanks for the work on the article. Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm really undecided here. This feels like one of those situations where we're judging more based on potential future notability rather than what sourcing is available. Much of the sourcing is redundant to one another. If we were to remove the redundant sourcing, this leaves us with two articles about the filming process, one about the moving being shopped around, one about it getting purchased, one announcement that the film will be released, and two casting notices (one of which mentions the weight loss). That's seven sources - it's not bad but I don't know that it's enough to argue that this unreleased film would be notable if, say, the film were to release and no one mentions this ever again except for an offhand remark by the director. Will it release? Most likely, but the catch of NFF is that we aren't supposed to judge it based on future potential but rather the here and now. I just don't know that this would pass NFF if this film never released, never got more media attention, and someone brought it up for AfD in two years' time with the same sourcing.

As such, I'm going to refrain from definitively arguing for or against notability here. I will say though, that we've had films that have been recently deleted due to not passing NFF while having a similarly weakish level of production coverage. It just feels like NFF is kind of unevenly applied at times. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://deadline.com/2025/02/cannes-venice-film-festival-lineups-tom-cruise-mission-impossible-1236284270/

Andreas Wiseman opining that the film might enter this year's Cannes Film Festival. Scombridae (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article provides a well-rounded overview of Alpha by Julia Ducournau, citing multiple reliable and independent sources. The details about the plot, production, and the involvement of key figures like Golshifteh Farahani and Tahar Rahim contribute to the article’s notability. However, adding more information about the film’s reception or festival screenings would enhance its depth and strengthen its alignment with Wikipedia’s notability criteria. Overall, it's a strong draft with room for further expansion as more details about the film emerge⋆｡˚꒰ঌ OnixPhilos ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC) Struck sock comment.—Alalch E. 04:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: At present, trying to decide whether to keep this article depends too much on WP:CRYSTAL. Even if principal photography has started, inclusion in the main space is not automatic (per WP:NFF). I think it's WP:TOOSOON, and we should follow 331dot's recommendation of keeping this article in draft until much closer to the release date.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamad Siraj Tamim

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. Eliminated in 1st round of heats. LibStar (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete. fails all criteria for WP:NTRACK and google search brought up only one source: 1, that does not even have any significant coverage of him. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 23:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the Arabic name for this subject is محمد سراج تميم, and I'm seeing multiple Google hits for that name. Subject was the Lebanese national 100 m record-holder (aka "the fastest person in Lebanon") in the post-Internet age, so I'd be very surprised if there wasn't coverage. See for example this BBC Arabic article where the subject is profiled: [24] --Habst (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. 201.226.200.41 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the BBC Arabic coverage, which makes the article pass SPORTCRIT, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. --Habst (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Area railway line

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

Unsourced since it was created. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 17:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. – The Grid (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wonthaggi railway line if the sentence can be sourced. SportingFlyer T·C 19:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I cannot find a source. Uncle G (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm from Mining and Geological Journal v. 6. no. 6 (Department of Mines, 1970) that there was a 1910 siding for the Powlett-North Woolamai Collieries, that "branched off the main line before the State Mine siding and extended about 1½ miles northward to the mine near the junction of the Loch and Dalyston–Wonthaggi roads". I can back that up with contemporary reports of commencing its construction. The journal goes on to say that "[t]he railway line to the Dudley Area Mine opened up in 1925 was rerouted to the State Mine terminal using part of the original Powlett and North Woolamai tracks near Dudley Area". What I cannot find is the 1930 line that this article claims. We don't even know that we don't have the Powlett and North Woolamai Colliery Company, the only private mine, the journal says, that operated alongside the State Coal Mine, and the real subject if we are going to have an article on this. Uncle G (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its a real shames that we don't have an article on that colliery. It seems to proper history. I don't know where the information in the article comes from, I couldn't find anything on it. Would it be worth updating the article with this information, since it seems to be a valid sources and updating the article contents accordingly and once the colliery is written, maybe do a merge a year down the road. scope_creep^Talk 17:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had another look yesterday. I can't see anything. Its a delete. scope_creep^Talk 12:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable railway siding Coldupnorth (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 12:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable search did not reveal any notable sources. ®asteem Talk 17:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Central States Numismatic Society

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

Fails WP:NORG. Refs present are either SELFPUB primary sources or wholly unrelated sources, all of only moderate reliability. A quick BEFORE yielded no evidence that this organization is notable, with results only comprising mentions a convention the group has hosted from posts by attendees and advertisers. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. Pbritti (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NORG. Sources are all the organization's own materials or niche numismatics publications (see WP:TRADES) that don't contribute to NORG. Awfully close to G11 territory. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The numismatic publications cited in the article are aimed at hobbyists and collectors, not dealers, so they aren't WP:TRADES and are legitimate references. As another example about the distinction between consumer and trade magazines, a magazine about knitting for hobbyists and people who like to knit is a consumer magazine, not a trade, but Knitting Trade Journal is a trade publication. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The presently cited trade mags are largely not about the subject of the article or come from extremely marginal pubs. I don't see them meaningfully contributing to notability.~ Pbritti (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The principle of WP:TRADES applies to niche hobbyist publications. Many very obscure topics get covered, even extensively, in niche publications; that doesn't make them encyclopedically notable. Per WP:ORGIND, "A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it." It's hard to say that Numismatic News and Coin World have no vested interest in the success of an association made up of their subscriber base. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 12:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Fixed Future

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, lacking significant coverage and secondary sources. Despite appearing to have references, most of these are either a circular primary source, not pertinent to the topic, or a WP:OR to extend the contents.

https://www.hankyung.com/economy/article/2019110435571 - The article cites this as if it's an overview of the contents of the book, but it is not. It's an interview of the author, with the book getting only a passing mention.
https://health.snu.ac.kr/node/63 - the author's self-written introduction on his university website. The link is broken.
https://www.yes24.com/24/AuthorFile/Author/174438 - a promotional storefront page.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92twITHF5WQ - WP:YOUTUBE. It's the author giving some lecture, not about the book.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5tJvDZMb_Q - WP:YOUTUBE. Another unrelated video about the author.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tF-C3K66aA - WP:YOUTUBE. Same as above.
https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20180303049000002 - this citation is fabricated; this source does not mention the book or the author. It's WP:OR.
https://www.khan.co.kr/article/201904032238005 - the only source that is about the book.
https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20171010057800017 - another fabricated reference; this also doesn't mention the book or the author.
https://blog.naver.com/hong8706/220831206656 - Personal blog. WP:SPS.
https://news.joins.com/article/22586875 - the link is broken. I can't find the original source.
https://www.donga.com/news/Opinion/article/all/20141119/67979257/1 - Doesn't mention the book.

I'll skip the rest because they're self-references. I looked up this book, and a few sources I found usually talk more about the author than the book, which rarely gets more than a few mentions. This was created in 2019, and it only attracted questionable sources and made-up references until now. This article is unsalvageable. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Economics, Korea, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Morse

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

The references mentioned pertain to the hotel, not the person. There is no individual notability to warrant an article. Shecose (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Travel and tourism, Football, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... I feel that between sources like [25], [26], [27] whats on the article, more online. There is plenty enough for WP:BASIC. Govvy (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am the article creator. Was phttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tyler_Morse&diff=1215907533&oldid=1213449050 moved from AfC] by an experienced admin and there are plenty of reliable sources showing notability. Nomination is a retaliatory one. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antorborti

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discourse here is varied, and presently there are notions to delete the article (from the nominator), and notions to Draftify it or Redirect it to Ahmed Rubel, the film's lead actor. This discussion would certainly benefit from more input from other users. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't agree with the framing of the rationale for deletion. Fourteen newspapers are cited saying that principal photography not only began, but was completed. They include some of the most reputable and widely circulated media outlets in Bangladesh: Bangladesh Pratidin, Kaler Kantho, Alokito Bangladesh, Bonik Barta, Samakal, Jaijaidin, The Daily Star, Daily Sun, RTV, Janakantha, and Jugantor. WP:NEWSORGINDIA is explicitly about Indian news organizations, not Bangladeshi ones or other South Asian entertainment coverage. One could debate whether it ought to be about all of South Asia, or indeed the entire world, but this is not the place for that discussion. I find that there are ample reliable sources to support that shooting is complete.

That being said, I don't believe that sources that say who the cast and crew are, that filming is complete, and that editing is underway are enough to make the production itself notable. The WP:NFF advice that an unreleased film generally should not have its own article applies. So I agree with Dclemens1971 and Mushy Yank that this does not belong in article space. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If draftify is the preference for this (and the page about its director), then I won't object, although as noted above I suspect draftification will have this article back at AfD sooner than later. Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per ATD-I. If the film is released and reviewed, someone will undoubtedly write an article about it, and a draft could serve as a useful starting point. There is a risk that creator Md.Monto or someone like them will ignore WP:DRAFT's instruction that they "should ... respond to the reason for moving to draft status, and use the AfC submission process to have the page moved back to mainspace." If that happens, then we will be back here, and next time I would recommend deletion. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and thank you @Worldbruce, What about a redirect (even if temporary, should the film be released later)? That would "solve" the "problem", don't you think? -Mushy Yank. 12:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of mountain passes in Turkey

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

Tagged 12 years ago as having no cites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Why_do_wikipedia_lists_need_references? and the Turkish article also lacks cites. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a common problem in these List of mountain passes in... articles - List of mountain passes in Switzerland also has no refs, List of mountain passes of India isn't much better, List of mountain passes of South Africa links to a google map and List of mountain passes in Wyoming (A–J) is simply referenced to the US geological survey --Spacepine (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge table to List of mountain passes#Turkey. This is a navigational list and the respective links are implied to be references, but it does not need a standalone page. Reywas92^Talk 14:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdoulie Bah (politician)

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

Subject fails NPOL; being the mayor of Banjul (a city with 31k population (page 9)) does not make him notable. With this interview, this routine piece, this one again, and this ROTM piece, we're left with nothing to satisfy GNG criteria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Africa. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whilst city mayors are not automatically passing NPOL, that in itself is not criteria for deletion. Bah has his own entry in Historical Dictionary of The Gambia, and there is clearly more to this than the current article, how he as a sitting mayor was forced into exile. Looking at the coverage following his death, it is evident that he was a notable person at national (and not just local) scene. --Soman (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman There's a difference between a country's standard national biographical dictionary and a country's national historical dictionary. WP:ANYBIO explicitly mentions the former and not the latter. Either way, is this historical dictionary you just mentioned the standard The Gambian historical dictionary? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concur with Soman, not satisfying NPOL is not criteria for deletion. An entry in a reliable source historical dictionary of the country is more than adequate in this case for WP:ANYBIO. This is one of the poorest countries in the world; need to be conscious of WP:BIAS here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW - according to news reports, Banjul, a city with a population of 31K, saw "thousands" attend his funeral service in 2018. Hardly chatracteristic of an unnotable politican. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage in historical dictionary, national papers is fairly indicative of notability, especially for a subject from, as Goldsztajn notes, a fairly underdeveloped country. Also, while Banjul itself only has 31,000 population, it is a significant city within the nation (capital city, largest city). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Jojo (Bengali singer)

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

no indication of notability. AgerJoy talk 09:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Research Foundation

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

does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, lacking significant independent coverage. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Medicine, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a textbook norg fail. Did not find anything on newspapers.com. Please ping if someone finds more. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Illyrian invasion of Macedonia (360 BC)

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

The page duplicates the topic presented in Battle of Upper Macedon (360 BC), and also includes original research. I would request speedy deletion per WP:A10, but a redirect seems more appropriate. Demetrios1993 (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Greece. Demetrios1993 (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and North Macedonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is not the greatest and i don't believe it is enough for the deletion of the page either the Battle of upper Macedonia is literally a battle of the illyrian invasion of Macedonia (360 BC) so yes i don't believe this argument is enough and not the greatest either Sigma.212 (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the only reason you got then i believe the page shoud stay that is not a valid reason considering the Battle you mentioned is part of the invasion Sigma.212 (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Demetrios1993pls check talk Sigma.212 (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yk I would appreciate it if you replied instead of staying silent Sigma.212 (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay because you have been making me very mad by not replying if you don't reply until morning i will remove the for deletion thing by myself because the sources are reliable i sourced everything and the reason you gave isn't good enough i explained why it isn't so yes you better reply unless if you are not replying because you know the reason you gave isn't enough in that case pls just tell me and remove the deletion thing Sigma.212 (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And also i forgot to mention it isn't good enough at the end Sigma.212 (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sigma.212 Please be patient. Demetrios may be busy. Thanks. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Possibly merge some info into Battle of Upper Macedon (360 BC). RedactedHumanoid (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion between Sigma.212, RedactedHumanoid, and Demetrios1993.

Neutral, I am divided here as Battle of Upper Macedon (360 BC) seems to be about the battle, and Illyrian invasion of Macedonia (360 BC) seems to be about the war. Unless, of course, the battle was the entirety of the war.

RedactedHumanoid (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's right but our guy here @Demetrios1993 dosn't understand that Sigma.212 (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly clear on what you mean by "Yes that's right", can you specify? Thanks. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it's right that the battle is about the battle and the invasion is about the war Sigma.212 (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding Sigma.212 (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No i mentioned other things like the full number of casualties of the Macedonians there full army the illyrian army numbers and i mentioned another battle of the war the battle of Erigon valley Sigma.212 (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Demetrios1993 I am changing my stance here to ~~weak keep~~, it does seem quite similar to the article Battle of Upper Macedon (360 BC), but this article (the one we are nominating) also includes things that are relevant to the conflict that the article about the Battle of Upper Macedon doesn't include. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RedactedHumanoid: Both "Battle of Upper Macedon (360 BC)" and "Illyrian invasion of Macedonia (360 BC)" are descriptive titles chosen by the editors who created the two articles. They pertain to the very same event, which occurred in either October 360 BCE, or the early spring or summer of 359 BCE, and led to the occupation of Upper Macedonia, and the death of the king Perdiccas III. This is what both articles mention about that particular event, and they even both touch upon the subsequent Battle of Erigon Valley (358 BC), which was a different event. There was no war that began in 360 BCE and ended in 358 BCE; these conflicts involving Bardylis and Macedon stretched back decades. The thing is that Battle of Upper Macedon (360 BC) provides more details (including proper sections about the background and aftermath), whereas the new page Illyrian invasion of Macedonia (360 BC) is shorter, and with examples of original research (including synthesis). Look at the infobox of the latter for example, and the so-called "other things" added by Sigma.212.

Philip II didn't participate in the battle, and yet he is being presented as a commander.
The additional five Macedonian leaders who were supposedly executed by the Illyrians actually pertain to a different incident from more than one and a half centuries later. They were members of Philip V's council, and murdered by him, not by the Dardanians. Read Hammond (1988, p. 411, not the cited p. 410), as well as the primary source of Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica (book 28, paragraph 2).
The figure of 14,500 Macedonian casualties is also original research. It includes two inline citations. The first is again Hammond (1988, p. 411), who actually describes Philip V from more than one and a half centuries later inflicting a crushing defeat against the Dardanians, and killing, according to Diodorus Siculus, some 10,000 of them; the second is Ashley (1998, p. 5), who actually refers to 4,000 Macedonian casualties (accurately reflected in the other article, Battle of Upper Macedon (360 BC)).
The map File:Map of Illyria under Bardylis.png showing the supposed domain of Bardylis extending over almost the entirety of the central and western Balkans, is totally fictitious and ridiculous, without a single source supporting it.

There are additional issues, but I believe you get the picture. And even if there was anything missing from the older page, it can always be added. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Possibly merge some info into Battle of Upper Macedon (360 BC). RedactedHumanoid (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the pages ofc it will have some similar things like i explained the battle is a battle of the war and Philip ll was in the war but later about the image you can always remove it is just a image and the 14.500 figure was the casualties of both Macedonian kings army combined and I didn't even found those sources from the page and about the Commanders the sources says "Bardylis in 358 had lost 7,000 men), and he executed five leading Macedonians."also the battle took place in 360 or 359 the war tho took place until 1 year later at 358BC Sigma.212 (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was no war that began in 360 BCE and ended in 358 BCE; that is your own improper editorial synthesis. And even if there was, you would also have to show Bardylis as KIA, the thousands of Illyrians casualties, and even the conflict as a "Macedonian victory", being the final result of the, supposedly, concluding Battle of Erigon Valley. There are also the guidelines about {{infobox military conflict}} in MOS:VICTORY, as well as Template:Infobox military conflict § Parameters ("result" in particular) to consider. Furthermore, the 14,500 figure is also based on synthesis; you took the 4,000 Macedonian casualties of the actual 360/359 conflict, added an unsourced 500 (which is the upper limit of Macedonian casualties presented in Battle of Erigon Valley), and finished with an addition of 10,000 that actually pertains to Dardanian casualties (not Macedonian) from a conflict that occurred more than one and a half centuries later. Also, both the aforementioned 10,000 Dardanian casualties, and the five leading Macedonians being actually killed by Philip V, are clearly conveyed in the full quotes that follow; not just your misleading cherrypicked part:

Hammond (1988, p. 411): Philip [205–198 BCE] campaigned against the Dardanians, who lost more than 10,000 men in a major defeat (Bardylis in 358 had lost 7,000 men), and he executed five leading Macedonians (D.S. 28.2).
Diodorus Siculus (book 28, paragraph 2): Philip, the king of the Macedonians, had by him a certain knavish fellow, Heracleides of Tarentum, who in private conversations with the king made many false and malicious charges against the friends whom Philip held in high esteem. Eventually Philip sank so low in impiety as to murder five leading members of the council. From that point on his situation deteriorated, and by embarking upon unnecessary wars he came near losing his kingdom at the hands of the Romans. For none of his friends any longer dared speak their minds or rebuke the king's folly for fear of his impetuous temper. He also led an expedition against the Dardanians, though they had done him no wrong, and after defeating them in pitched battle massacred more than ten thousand men.

The part about Bardylis is within a parenthesis, and the quote from the primary source of Diodorus Siculus (D.S. 28.2), cited by Hammond, leaves no room for any misinterpretations. Why are you trying to mislead your fellow editors? You are wasting everyone's time with this, including your own.

RedactedHumanoid, please consider enclosing the whole discussion under your original vote (including it) within a collapsible template (see Template:Collapse top), and use your last standing vote as a title. The state of the discussion above is confusing and will deter any other editor from commenting/voting. If you need assistance, I can do it as well. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RedactedHumanoid, also please strikethrough your previous votes, per WP:AFDFORMAT. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. Thanks for telling me. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like i have alot to reply here alright so let's begin the reason why i didn't include the 7.000 is bellow in the article and no it wasn't Macedonian victory many reasons why because bardylis occupied many parts of Macedonia and he almost brought the kingdom to its collapse also the 10.000 man is from the "Philip campaigned against the Dardanians, who lost more than 10,000 men in a major defeat" Philip lost 10k not the Dardanians and i don't understand why are you coping so much at the end "the part of bardylis is from" so ? I don't understand your point there Sigma.212 (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and the sources say the 5 Macedonian leaders where killed by bardylis not Philip holy cope man and if you want to put bardylis as kia I don't mind it Sigma.212 (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also i have another question for you why are you changing your topic you put the article for deletion for a other thing and now you are yapping about something else also your points are not the best Sigma.212 (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linux Software Map

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

Obscure topic without 3RR or importance Greatder (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Greatder (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are a few articles written by a single group: [28], [29], plus some other coverage: [30], [31], [32]. Even though the first group of sources shares roughly the same authors, and the second group of sources doesn't contain a lot of coverage, the sources should demonstrate bare notability. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toaster (film)

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

Sources are unreliable or announcements, no significant coverage. Nothing notable about production so fails WP:NFF. Attempted to redirect as an WP:ATD but that was objected to. CNMall41 (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Sword Dance

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

No evidence of notability, a random rootsweb site and a museum which hosts a model of the ship but provides only extremely minimal information. Fram (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Transportation, and Russia. Fram (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IF you can find a website and send a link here then I'll add it, otherwise it doesn't even make sense Woffio (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carnatic expansion

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

The subject clearly fails WP:GNG. It violates WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, There is no mention of anything called Carnatic expansion in the sources, It is entirely written in WP:FAN POV. Mr.Hanes Talk 08:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It includes well known, well documented historical events. Incidentally the influence of Karnataka on Harsh, the ruler of Kashmir is mentioned by Kalhana explicitly in Rajatarangini in several places. Chapter 7 shlokas 926-927, 935-937, 1119-1124.^[1]. It is also acknowledged by Sir Aurel Stein in his introduction. Malaiya (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't justifies the issues I've mentioned above. There's no such thing called Carnatic expansion in the sources which includes all the historical events in the article, It's full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess. Rajatarangini is not a reliable source, see WP:PRIMARY. Mr.Hanes

Talk 05:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will Wilkinson

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

BLP is sourced entirely to self-written pieces or interviews of subject (other than one "American Conservative" article which isn't WP:NPOV). Extensive talk page discussion by subject with other editors, arguing about his notability (over a 15+ year interval); WP:JOURNO non-notable journalist/blogger. Also, subject has at least two WP accounts and makes edits to this BLP as well as his wife's BLP so there's a serious COI. Re possible sockpuppet issue see User:WillWilkinson and User:Will_Wilkinson FeralOink (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. FeralOink (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nwamaka Okoye

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

This is a lengthy article standing on just a single RS here[33]. The other sources do not show that this entrepreneur meets any notability guidelines. These sources here are interviews[34][35][36][37][38][39]. This[40] is written by the subject of this article. These here[41][42][43][44][45] are statements where the subject received trivial mentions. These are primary sources[46][47] Mekomo (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the article has been updated since nomination. The links you yourself have proposed further support the notability guidelines, especially when we consider the region she operates in, which has a smaller media landscape than for Western individuals, and that does not always have documented sources that Wikipedia considers appropriate. Consider this feature of her speaking publicly about abolishing state descriptors to remove barriers to job access, or here speaking about electoral integrity. It was distributed by a major news outlet, which would be considered a RS elsewhere in the world. But because it is not hosted on an independent site, only Youtube it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. There are lots of other supporting information about Okoye that is distributed this way. I think the argument that there are not enough reliable sources to establish notability is particularly narrow as we should be conscious that not all regions have the sources that would be expected by a Western audience. If we deny on these grounds it risks biasing the Encyclopedia further, especially when it concerns those that are considered notable persons outside a Western perspective. The readers can come to their own conclusions. Nayyn (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your update after the nomination does not address the notability concerns raised because you merely edited the existing information in the article without addressing the main issue. The three sources you presented are not different from what were already in the article in the sense that the new ones you presented are also interviews by a TV station. She was only interviewed commenting on a different thing and that does not improve her notability. Please checkout WP:INDEPENDENT. You're an autopatrolled user right holder that should have a deep understanding of what reliable and acceptable sources are. I analyzed all the sources in the article in the nomination statement and would like you to pick the sources and analyse them one after the other to show how they meet RS criteria. Mekomo (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how a personal attack about me constructively furthers your argument. You've not engaged with the points I've raised in my commentary above. Nigeria has 230 million people, but only 81 women businesswoman from the 21st century on Wikipedia. Nayyn (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and Nigeria. Mekomo (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree with @Nayyn's argument about a) the article being improved significantly and b) some aspects of notability needing to take context into consideration. Even a nationally-important entrepreneur in sub-Saharan Africa isn't going to routinely have Washington Post or Le Monde articles written about them. Deleting this would be jumping the gun. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 13:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate those new sources that have 'improved significantly' the notability and those 'aspects of notability needing to take context into consideration'. Mekomo (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Largely sourced to interviews, I don't see notability. I suppose founding an award could be notable, but with no coverage of the award either, I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starseed launcher

AfDs for this article:

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

I didn't find any significant coverage of this idea in secondary sources, only several mentions of it. The article is sourced with one primary source and one passing mention. Without additional sources, it appears not notable enough for an article. Artem.G (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Spaceflight. Artem.G (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this seems similar to the proposal at interstellar travel#Nanoprobes. Perhaps this article should be merged? Praemonitus (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I think Praemonitus has got it right. This should be sentence or two at interstellar travel#Nanoprobes, where a single proposal source would be okay. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella's stepsisters

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

Dubious notability, a lot of in universe stuff, and no reliable sources, some don't even mention the stepsisters. Despite it being a request move, I still think this fails WP:GNG Toby2023 (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, Film, Television, and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For context, the nominator previously nominated several extremely notable fictional elements and did no WP:BEFORE checks on any. This resulted in criticism, and he then said he would leave. He is now doing the same thing again. Without checking I would be quite surprised if this topic is not notable. But I also haven't checked so I'm not voting keep. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm finding some pretty heavy evidence that the topic here is notable. The article could absolutely use work, but AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. This article discusses the characters as they appear in several different iterations - I'll also say that the idea of "wicked stepsisters" is a very common trope in literature. These characters are commonly credited as popularizing the trope. I've found some theses that discuss them in some depth (this, this). So far no PhD theses, but the presence of these does give off the impression that other sources discussing the topic do exist. I've also found coverage of the topic of Cinderella's stepmother (here, here) and while they're hidden behind a paywall, a snipped view does show that the stepsisters are mentioned to some degree. Basically, there appears to be quite a few sources where the topic is discussed to varying degrees (here, here). Cinderella is of course mentioned, but you are almost never going to get a source that discusses a character completely separate from their source material(s).

The term also appears to be used in the mental health field to some degree. Aside from that, the term is also the title of a 1979 speech by Toni Morrison. From what I can see, the speech does discuss the topic enough to where it could be used to establish notability, as Morrison goes into some detail about how these characters are depicted in the original works and her own thoughts on them, before using it as a pathway into another topic. There's also this one that specifically mentions the stepsisters. It's paywalled but it gives off the impression that the stepsisters are mentioned to some degree.

My point in all of this is that the topic does indeed appear to be notable and the term itself seems to have a fairly wide variety of uses outside of the characters themselves. The page needs work (preferably by someone who can easily access paywalled academic databases), not deletion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this: When the Slipper Doesn't Fit: Construction of the “Ugly” Female in Cinderella Picture-Book Illustrations 1800–2015. Since Cinderella is described as beautiful in pretty much every rendition and the stepsisters are frequently depicted as ugly, it's very likely that this discusses the stepsisters in some depth. Another paywalled source, though. This source also appears to mention the stepsisters' appearances, but also paywalled.

This source discusses the politeness strategies used in a film adaptation of the story, specifically looking at the film's antagonists (ie, stepmother and stepsisters most certainly are mentioned). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also in general, a good chunk of the articles and whatnot that discuss the fairy tale (and its adaptations) can be used to flesh out the article. Honestly, this is one area where a spinoff article would be warranted even if there was no notability. There are so many notable adaptations of the fairy tale (and content discussing just the various iterations of the fairy tale itself) that it makes sense to have an article focusing on these specific characters, as otherwise it would put undue weight on the parent article for the fairytale.

I'm going to start putting the various sources I find on the article's talk page. I'm going to change my argument to a keep. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting this book put out by what appears to be an academic/scholarly publisher that is specifically about the relationship between Cinderella and the stepsisters. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided above that show in depth analysis and SIGCOV. I think Cinderella's stepsisters are two of the most notable fictional characters ever created - even in regular TV you always hear references to the "ugly stepsisters"/"evil stepsisters" etc. Yes the article needs more sourcing for verification and cleanup, but deletion is not cleanup. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above and the general lack of research put into the nomination, which appears to have been done by a disruptive user. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/snow keep as substantial coverage clearly establishing notability has been found. Could use work, not deletion. No point in leaving open for a full week. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've blocked the user who nominated this. I participated in the AfD so that does make it a bit messy, but the editor has shown a history of being warned and not really listening to the advice others have given them. I wanted to note this here for full disclosure. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per others above, plenty of coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mint chocolate

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

WP:BEFORE in my assortment of chocolate books turned up nothing or mere mentions. No sigcov in Scholar, neither apparently in Books, TWL, JSTOR, Google, NYT archives. Lot of mentions of Mint chocolate chip, although it isn't an appropriate merge or redirect target. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 03:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Types of chocolate. Problem solved. BD2412 T 03:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a flavoring, like strawberry, coffee, or caramel. The scope of Types of chocolate is different, predominantly around production techniques. That being said, the scope could be redefined. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 04:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure but lean towards weak delete. The flavour is clearly ubiquitous in many cultures and geographies, so it seems hard to believe that someone hasn't written a history of the social importance of it. But I'm not seeing anything. On the other hand there are a lot of these kinds of pages, for example Mint chocolate chip, which are apparently also weakly referenced. So I'm not sure. JMWt (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also unsure, but rather than merging to types of chocolate (which is currently very much types rather than flavours, another possible target would be Mint (candy), though again it enlarges the scope of the article, which currently only deals with little white sweets/candies, not big brown bars and mint-thins etc. Elemimele (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not an easy one to search for - so many ads come up! I have searched for both "Mint chocolate" and "Chocolate Mint", and found a variety of sources and information. Whether it will add up to WP:SIGCOV I am not yet sure. The Tokyo Weekender has an article about how "chocmint" became popular in Japan [48]. (There seems to be a graphic novel series published in Japan called Mint Chocolate, too [49]) A choc-mint drink became a political symbol in Thailand [50] (but is this article just about individual or block mint-flavoured chocolate, or chocolate-coated mint, or does it extend to chocmint as a flavour?). Mashed has an article "Here's Where The Concept Of Mint Chocolate Came From" [51]. One well-known product missing from this WP article is the Girl Scout Cookies#Varieties Thin Mints - I found histories of them here [52] and here [53] (p 110). Chocolate mints on or under the pillow at hotels is described here [54] (not reliable, but gives info that could be searchable). Mathematician Jean Dieudonné promised a chocolate mint to whoever could explain why the social background in which Carl Friedrich Gauss lived led him to 17-sided regular polygons. [55]. Half of boxed chocolate mint sales are in the last 12 weeks of the year. [56] (and that source, Industrial Chocolate Manufacture and Use, has more info about mint chocolate that I can't see. The National Druggist had a recipe for "cocoa-mint" soda drink in 1897 [57] and Henley's Twentieth Century Book of Recipes, Formulas and Processes (1909) [58] also has one. Built on Chocolate: The Story of the Hershey Chocolate Company [59] has 6 results for "mint chocolate", which I can't see all of, but can see that there's info about Hershey's mint chocolate introduced in 1959 and discontinued in 1969 (which doesn't seem to be in the Hershey article, nor this article). I'll try to find other sources. (Btw, I do appreciate the nom's reference to "my assortment of chocolate books"! ) RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! RebeccaGreen thankyou for all this! Yes, searching around food articles can really be hard to find independent sourcing. To my eyes, most of these sources are not about and do not establish notability for mint chocolate, but rather the flavor combination of chocolate and mint, which seems to be a missing broad-concept article.

Such an article would raise the question of the creation of articles for chocolate pairings of chocolate and vanilla [60], chocolate and chili [61], chocolate and caramel, chocolate and almonds [62]... Perhaps a list article would best serve the presentation of such information, although I won't pretend I know if it would meet WP:NLIST. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 00:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the difference between "mint chocolate" and "chocolate and mint" other than perhaps the latter would include "mint chocolate chip" even though it is a flavour of ice-cream. To me, "mint chocolate chip" is a use of mint chocolate, so I don't really see why it is a separate page anyway.

As far as I can see there is at least potential for an interesting and informative page on the history of this flavour. The problem isn't with the concept but the lack of reliable sources we can use. JMWt (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My name is Bearian and I'm addicted to chocolate mint. But seriously folks ... there are several good sources found already. Bearian (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to a merge to a new article on flavors of/added to chocolate. The sources list by RebeccaGreen above are enough to support an article, though it might be best to organize it as a section of a broader topic. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have a variety of opinions here and no consensus. Could some enterprising editor pull out the THREE best sources? I also recall during a blitz of similar AFDs 2 or 3 years ago, we had some AFD regulars and editors like User:Valereee who were well-educated in food and cookbook articles and sourcse. I just wish I could recall their usernames.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also a fan of mint chocolate, but would favour merging/redirect to Chocolate as it stands. I could maybe see an article being developed here, perhaps in the form of a broader concept article on flavouring chocolate. Until someone actually writes that, however, I don't see the depth of sourcing that really demonstrates this as an inherently notable stand-alone article. I looked at a number (perhaps ~15) of books on chocolate, including The Economics of Chocolate, Chocolate: History, Culture, and Heritage, Chocolate science and technology, Chocolate and Health, The Science of Chocolate and hardly any of them even includes the word 'mint'. That's suggestive to me that maybe we'd struggle to develop a full article here. The bits and pieces linked above, while fascinating, strike me as exactly that: bits and pieces. Hard to build an article out of. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Talk

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

Article about a radio show, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for radio shows. The attempted notability claim here is that it's "the longest-running computer-related broadcast program on the air", but there's no source shown to verify that, or anything else either -- the only "reference" present in the article at all is the external link to the self-published website of the show's host, but it doesn't contain any content verifying any of this either, and is instead just an archive of a handful of radio comedy clips rather than anything related to computers.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have proper WP:GNG-worthy referencing. Bearcat (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Washington. Bearcat (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dave Ross, its founder, as an ATD. Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for a possible Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dave Ross, as I don't think there's really any reliably sourced content worth merging. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dave Ross: there are no significant coverages, good for redirect. AgerJoy talk 17:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitution Society

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

Fails GNG (or WP:NCORP, if you believe charities qualify as such). Badbluebus (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Badbluebus (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The existing references are to the organisation's website, its own publications and Hansard, so do not establish notability. I found a bit of coverage in the Guardian, here and here, but am not seeing significant coverage in multiple RS. Tacyarg (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:PROMOTION, User:Caveman2001 created this article on Oct 4, 2001, and has never edited again. As mentioned above, the Constitution Society uses itself as the referencing. — Maile (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, didn't find anything indicating notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication of notability. AgerJoy talk 18:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bald Truth

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

Article about a radio program, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for radio programs. As always, radio programs are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them -- and while this asserts things about the show that could count as notability claims if they were sourced properly, it cites no sources at all besides the show's own self-published website about itself, and says nothing that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt the show from having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing any RS which could be considered against the notability criteria. JMWt (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverages. AgerJoy talk 17:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Donalds

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG as none of the posts they've held are notable for an article, with most notability appearing to be because she is married to a U.S. Representative, going against the principle of WP:NOTINHERITED. Most references do not provide WP:SIGCOV or are not independent of the subject. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, Education, United States of America, and Florida. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep, due to her rather high profile as an activist. The subject gets quite a few newspapers.com hits. No objection to moving to draft for improvement to a clearly encyclopedic level of coverage. BD2412 T 01:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a delete. I see maybe two articles referenced that actually focus on the subject. Mistletoe-alert (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the conservative media have created a lot of stars but they never bother to document anything about them. Why, you might ask. I used to work with somebody who had a show on Trinity Broadcasting Network, and they never got to asking any pointed questions because they were Peyton Place meets Harper Valley. My co-worker, by the way, remarried his ex-wife to spite his girlfriend. I'm not casting any aspersions on the subject, I'm just explaining why there is a lack of significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's a 4000 word profile of her in Mother Jones, in addition to lots of Florida newspaper coverage going back many years. This coverage is not inherited from her husband, and it's independent of subject. I'm the author of the original article, and several others of this type about Florida public figures such as Kent Stermon. The conservative movement promotes a bunch of people without conventional credentials of notability, and their backgrounds ought to be discoverable by the public via sources that aren't self-promotion. Donalds is a perfect example. 40,000 page views in the last 90 days.

Court Liberty (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Court Liberty. The Mother Jones profile is unambiguously significant reliable source coverage. Jfire (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a source analysis would help as I don't see this Mother Jones article in the article itself and we have conflicting assessments of sources. I'm surprised no one mentioned the editing by ErikaDonalds on this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think her spats in the media are what we need for notability [63] (I'm unsure if that's even about the same person), [64]. She seems to be good at agitating people, but that's hardly enough for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable yet, but potential with more substantive accomplishments. Her background is not relevant to notability in this case. Notability is not inherited. The wife of a sitting US Representative from Flolrida holding a fund raiser where Donald Trump shows up is just a Florida fund raiser. — Maile (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, just to confirm, you don't think the 4000 word profile of Donalds in Mother Jones constitutes significant coverage? Jfire (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about significant coverage. — Maile (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Let's look at the coverage here, starting with the 'meh' ones:
- Florida Politics SigCov, but not indicative of notability. Florida Politics is a website that has been accused of using 'pay to play' tactics for coverage.
- News-Press article is a passing mention in a story on her husband
- Heavy is not a reliable source to build an article upon
- She's also gotten a lot of coverage in Fox News (ie [65]) which is again poor quality but perhaps indicative of her notability.

There's a case that some of those articles could contribute to notability. But we don't need to make it. Better quality sourcing exists:

- Business Observer seems ok
- she gets substantial coverage in this NYT profile of her husband. Same with The New Republic
- and in this New Yorker article (not about her husband)
- Mother Jones article is undoubtedly reliable sigcov, if perhaps somewhat biased.
- and finally, a decent amount of coverage in your standard florida publications (ie [66], [67], [68], [69]). She did dramatic things as school board/school choice advocate. It naturally got coverage.

Unless I'm missing something major, there is a substantial amount of coverage of Donalds here, far more than we would expect for a standard congressperson's spouse. A decent amount of it is of her own activism. NOTINHERITED is not a shortcut for ignoring existing coverage. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's hard to ignore the Mother Jones and New Republic articles. The local school board stuff doesn't count, the stuff with her husband doesn't count, most of these sources I don't actually think qualify, there's definite SPA/INVOLVED editing going on, but there's just enough sourcing. Draftifying may be the best option tbh. SportingFlyer T·C 23:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean ‘doesn’t count’? It’s still sigcov in reliable sources. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Environmentalist

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

Redundant content fork of Environmentalism. The premise of the existence of this article is that a philosophy and people who subscribe to that philosophy are separate and meaningful topics, which I think most editors can agree is absurd. That said, a standalone list of notable environmentalists would be perfectly valid, and one could easily be created by splitting off the existing list within this article (presumably to List of environmentalists, which is currently a redirect). — Anonymous 00:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Environment. — Anonymous 00:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to environmentalism. Per nom, not seeing any reason this cannot be covered in that article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cascine

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and New York. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Low taper fade

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

Non-notable meme, AI-generated, barely sourced. If this was one of those brain rots then fine, I'll let it slide :)

Though I do hear it on the Internet quite often 😁 Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 00:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 00:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BADIDEA The article only has one source, which is Yahoo news. This appears to be a meme about a haircut: "A low taper fade is a variation of the low taper haircut where the hair fades to skin level towards the neck and ears". — Maile (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maile. Nearly unsourced. Davemc0 (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more reliable sources can be found. Fails notability. Marincyclist (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicated by a slightly better AfC submission anyways. Draft:Low taper fade (meme) ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 09:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ah, that meme. Yea, there's like one source. Looks like it fails WP:GNG. mer764KC / Cospaw⛲️ (He/Him | 💬Talk! • 📦Contributions) 12:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wanting a celebrity to get a certain haircut isn't notable. The one source used isn't enough and this appears to have faded away, with no media mentions since then. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The infamous "massive" meme. Delete because there are no reliable sources and fails WP:GNG. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 16:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Ninja_(gamer)#Low_Taper_Fade, though delete is preferable as the "low taper fade" section of the Ninja article has questionable WP:WEIGHT. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and lack significant coverages. AgerJoy talk 18:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Temple fade (hairstyle) already covers this meme, which is ultimately not supported by WP:GNG jolielover♥talk 18:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Shapur (1919)

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

Fake battle with unreliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iranian112 (talk • contribs)

Delete This article has an odd tone, and I can't find anything online that proves this even happened! --Wisteriasinbloom (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Iran. jolielover♥talk 18:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply]

^ Kalhanaʼs Rajatarangini. Vol. 1 by Kalhanaʼs Rajatarangini. Vol. 1 by Sir Aurel Stein, pages 340-355

[1] Kalhanaʼs Rajatarangini. Vol. 1 by Kalhanaʼs Rajatarangini. Vol. 1 by Sir Aurel Stein, pages 340-355

[1]