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

< December 28	December 30 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Zionist political violence

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

This page should be merged into Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Zionism, where the majority of Zionist acts of political violence are covered.

I have also initiated a deletion discussion for Palestinian political violence, which I believe should be merged into Israeli–Palestinian conflict as well. Firecat93 (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Firecat93 what criteria are you proposing here, from WP:MERGEREASON? You haven't really given a convincing argument that they should not be separate articles and that they do not have the notability to be articles in their own right. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am I correct that you're asserting that there is sufficient overlap? ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's correct. Firecat93 (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Both topics are notable and both suggested targets would not benefit from a merge, merging them into them would make it worse. Distinct types of 'political violence' are notable - same reason we have Left-wing terrorism and Right-wing terrorism as articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this nomination did not give clear reasons this should be merged to the proposed targets. There is no similarity between this article and Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Zionism. They are sufficiently different and can all be stand alone articles. Merging would lead to loss of valuable information in the Zionist political violence article. Seminita (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, wikipedia disgraced itself well enough all those years by refusing to name that article Zionist TERRORISM and political violence, and i obviously oppose burying that Zionist TERRORISM and political violence down another article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.168.16.122 (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian political violence

AfDs for this article:

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

This page should be merged into Israeli–Palestinian conflict, where the majority of Palestinian acts of political violence are covered. Instead of being summarized here, acts of Palestinian political violence should be included both in Israeli–Palestinian conflict and in relevant pages, such as Black September, 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel, 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine.

This may be the only article on Wikipedia that covers acts of violence by a certain ethnic group, except in a particular contexts like German atrocities of 1914. The article, based on its description, by definition employees a non neutral POV. Therefore, rather have a broad article about all modern acts of political violence committed by members of an ethnic group globally, information about Palestinian (and Israeli) acts of violence are much better situated (and already included) in more specific and relevant articles, such as 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel, Palestinian suicide attacks (a very specific type of terrorism), Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel, 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine, First Intifada, Second Intifada, and Israeli-Palestinian conflict pages.

I have also initiated a deletion discussion for Zionist political violence, which I believe should be merged into Israeli–Palestinian conflict as well, where most of the information in both articles is already covered.Firecat93 (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Both topics (including the Zionist one) are notable and both suggested targets would not benefit from a merge, merging them into them would make it worse. Distinct types of 'political violence' are notable - same reason we have Left-wing terrorism and Right-wing terrorism as articles. I do see an issue with the ethnic aspect you mentioned, but as you say we have articles on similar war atrocities committed by the Germans so it's not without precedent, this is clearly a very discussed topic and the merge suggested would make everything unclear. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Some subtopics of broader topics are significant enough to warrant their own article.--Reprarina (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support (additional comment from author of AfD): The article is a summary of all moderns acts of political violence (and, frankly, violence more generally) committed globally by Palestinians (an ethnonational group). No such article exists for any other ethnic group (e.g. there is no article centered on Russian political violence or American political violence or Venezuelan political violence or British political violence or Turkish political violence, etc.) Many of these topics are arguably much broader. Furthermore, all of the acts described in Palestinian political violence are already included (usually in more detail) in relevant articles, such as Israel–Hamas war and Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Therefore, per Wikipedia guidelines, this article should be merged: WP:OVERLAP. When doing so, as needed, existing articles can be expanded. Firecat93 (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot vote twice, so you shouldn't have done the vote bolding. It makes it seem like another person supported it. And as you admitted - this is not true, in that we have an article on German atrocities. While that is constrained to the specific conflict, this in practice is also constrained to the specific conflict. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA Respectfully, no, it is not constrained to the specific conflict. It is constrained to a specific ethnic group.

For instance, the article includes acts of political violence against the British during the Mandatory Period, including the 1936-39 revolt, which is a different conflict than the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict. It also includes violence during Black September and attempts to assassinate Jordanian kings (conflict with Jordan), internal Palestinian violence and fighting, and political violence in the context of the Lebanese Civil War and conflict with the Lebanese Phalangists. Also, notably, acts of political violence committed in support of the Palestinian cause by non-ethnic Palestinians are not included).

This an article that (poorly) attempts to covers all acts of political violent committed by ethnic Palestinians in the modern era. It lacks context and nuance, and is very different than an article that covers violence, terrorism, etc. in particular contexts or by particular governments or groups. Firecat93 (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, the conflict has been going on for a long time and I feel an article like this would naturally cover precursor elements and cases where it bleeds over into other countries. Also I would just delete the whole table at the bottom it is wholly unsourced. The title or individual items can be quibbled on but the sources do evidence to me that this is generally a notable concept. This is the parent article of several others as well, which makes this even more complicated. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first sentence in the article lead: "Palestinian political violence refers to acts of violence or terrorism committed by Palestinians with the intent to accomplish political goals, and often carried out in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict."

This article attempts to summarize all acts of violence or terrorism committed by Palestinians with the intent to accomplish political goals. It is far too broad and it's contents summarize existing information in other articles. Firecat93 (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then if broadness is the problem the scope should be reduced, not merging to a page where nothing here would properly go. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the vast majority of what is summarized is already adequately covered in other articles. (E.g. war crimes on October 7th are already described in much greater detail in October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel)

However, if the consensus is to keep the article, I agree that its scope should be narrowed. Firecat93 (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the first sentence of the lead of German atrocities of 1914: "The German atrocities of 1914 were committed by the Imperial German Army at the beginning of World War I in Belgium, particularly in Wallonia, and in France in the departments of Meuse, Ardennes, and Meurthe-et-Moselle."

This is not an article about all atrocities by Germans in 1914. It has a specific context - Imperial German Army atrocities at the beginning of World War I in Belgium and France. Additionally, this article does not extensively overlap with or summarize other articles. Instead, it expands upon existing articles on World War I.

An article, however, that attempts to summarize all atrocities committed by ethnic Germans since the unification of German speaking states in the 19th century would, very clearly, not be appropriate. In your view, would it also be appropriate to have an article that attempt to summarize all acts of political violence committed by Indians, Germans, Jews, African Americans, or Tunisians etc.?

Firecat93 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's in furtherance of a political/national independence goal, probably, though it could be titled better. This article could probably be retitled, but since acts of terror committed by Palestinians / Palestinian political entities are basically entirely tied to their sovereignty struggle (are there any here that aren't related to it?) titling it is a bit harder. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Other articles existing or not existing is not a reason for deletion. Why would Palestinian political violence be confined to the current conflict?MWFwiki (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Rodríguez Long

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level competitions, no junior-level international medals. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Spain. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, no major wins, coverage is only confirmation of participation in various events. Oaktree b (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any secondary sources showing notability under the WP:GNG here. Let'srun (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English Young Liberals

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

No independent or third-party sources. Structure section just consists of a list of names which seems like WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in Google News, one passing mention in Google Books. Orange sticker (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Orange sticker (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but in dire need of improvement — I would certainly prefer it being kept as opposed to deleted. Failing that I would prefer it be draft-ified or the like.

I had previously stub-ified the artcle by removing vast amounts of content in this edit and here. I was hesitant to do such but believed it to be needed due to verifibility concerns and to avoid a directory article. After that I'd put it on my radar of pages needing additional content.

I believe that EYL scrapes GNG, from a quick gander using the book search, it seems to be mentioned at least in more than one book (Though firefox seems to be preventing me from using preview to look in the books rather annoyingly), though as you said no significant news coverage. I may be mistaken, but I believe the EYL have had some different names in their past as well which may have better coverage, but I'm struggling to recall or pull up what they were (Which doesn't really help the case I suppose).

I'm under no illusion that this isn't a weak case from me however, and I believe you're right to have brought this up Bejakyo (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the book mentions may be a reference to National League of Young Liberals which is not the same org Czarking0 (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first two hits I found in Google books are the merest passing mentions, not wp:sigcov. I also proposed a redirect to Liberal Democrats (UK) in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Young_Liberals_(UK) after making this nomination.

Orange sticker (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It would make significantly more sense to merge English YL into Young Liberals (UK). However, I note that there is no entry for Scottish Young Liberals (it redirects to Scottish Liberal Democrats), and that other political youth groups (such as Scottish Labour Students) have individual sub-national organisations with their own pages. For the sake of neutrality all such should be treated consistently. Espatie (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Barrels

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

Fails WP:NCORP. There seems to be no significant coverage. The focus of the sources are the Outlast games, not the company itself. Suggesting redirection to Outlast as an alternative to deletion. Mika1h (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Canada. Mika1h (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its claim to fame (Outlast). --CNMall41 (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is clear coverage in at least two existing sources (edge and gi.biz) about the founding of the company that meet the independence of NCORP. That might be tied to talking about Outlast but that's expected for a developer that has focused on one series since founding. Masem (t) 21:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the edge article currently on the page?--CNMall41 (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that gi.biz is SIGCOV, but that Edge article (about Assassin's Creed) only has a passing mention to the company. --Mika1h (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I was wondering as the Edge article on the page is no where near meeting WP:ORGCRIT. The gi.biz is an industry publication so while it meets ORGCRIT, it is still not enough and not that strong of a reference to meet NCORP standards. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears their sole product, the Outlast series, would be more notable. Could this be retooled into a series article? IgelRM (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sajidabad

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

In doing new page review, my initial instinct was to WP:BLAR this to Orangi Town, but when I went to leave the user notice, I saw the discussion on the blocked creator's talk page and now I am convinced even a redirect is inappropriate. Searching for sources, this neighborhood doesn't even pass WP:V, much less WP:GNG or WP:NGEO. Sajidabad doesn't appear in either of the sources/external links left in this article. The only thing I can find on the topic at all is the page creator's marketing agency, a source that was removed for obvious reasons. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is very unencyclopedic. Most articles about a city don't mention their businesses, unless it is a very big multinational corporation (I might be wrong about that too). I'm pretty sure no one aside from people within or near the locality have seen their businesses, which means there is no reason to put them there, unless it's to advertise. The "demographics" section doesn't even specify its population (the number), which is the first thing that it should have (in my opinion).

JekyllTheFabulous (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to help, but it simply wasn't notable or verifiable. Safrolic (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per author's argument Firecat93 (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one was on my radar from dealing with the marketing agency promotion, and I also failed to find any significant mentions of the neighbourhood. I suspect that many of the other linked areas in Orangi Town would also fail notability. Meters (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: This article fails WP:V and WP:GNG. There simply isn't enough sourcing to justify it.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert W. Faid

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

Reliable sources mentioning Faid only mention him for a single thing: his theory that Mikhail Gorbachev is the Antichrist, for which he received the satirical Ig Nobel Prize. Here are three such sources; note that the third has merely a passing mention:

Levine, Art (June 4, 1988). "THE DEVIL IN GORBACHEV". Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 5, 2022. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
Abrahams, Marc (May 10, 2004). "Devilish digits". The Guardian. Archived from the original on August 8, 2022. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
Whisker, Daniel (July 2012). "Apocalyptic Rhetoric on the American Religious Right: Quasi-Charisma and Anti-Charisma". Max Weber Studies. 12 (2): 159–184 – via JSTOR. The periodic modification of the specific signs of prophetic fulfilment is a key feature of the discourse: no-one now presents Mikhail Gorbachev as a potential Antichrist, as did Robert Faid in 1988 (Faid 1988), or the Native Americans as Antichrist's army, as did Cotton Mather in 1693 (Boyer 1992).

In its current state, the article contains information far beyond this single thing. This information is either completely unsourced or copied verbatim, in what I assume is a copyright violation, from Faid's obituary on Legacy.com, an unreliable source which hosts user-generated content and nonsensically claims that Faid "held the honor of being in the top ten nuclear scientists until 1975".

In my opinion, this single thing for which Faid is known is not enough to make him notable. Instead, this information, along with the three sources above, would be better suited as a part of a different article, perhaps List of conspiracy theories § Antichrist or Faid's entry at List of Ig Nobel Prize winners § 1993. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk – edits) 22:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk – edits) 22:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to List of Ig Nobel Prize winners § 1993. Also add more info in the target page about his Antichrist theories, the one thing reliable sources confirm about him.

JekyllTheFabulous (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Military, Christianity, Engineering, Maryland, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The entire Biography section was all but a direct copy from his 2008 Baltimore Sun obituary - and has been since April 2009. I've removed the copyvio text and RD1'd the article history. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bowers

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

Came across this article when I tried to link Mike Bowers in a draft I'm working on and linked to this instead. BLP article with no sources, appears to be written by someone with a COI given the specificity of some of the details. I did a search for sources and coverage but was unable to find anything. There is another musician with a similar name (Michael D. Bowers) who has some coverage, but that does not appear to be the person this article is about. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Bands and musicians. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why doesn't the musician "Michael D. Bowers" that you mentioned have his own article if he has some coverage?

JekyllTheFabulous (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mexico, Texas, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of reliable sources so we are unable to prove notability. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 00:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found for this singer in my search. Article is largely unsourced, so we have no way of confirming what's correct. Appears to be only a working musician, nothing for our notability purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cannot find any reliable sources establishing notability. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Izno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (65sugg) in violation of ban or block". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Platonist physicists

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

Based upon a discussion at WT:Physics#String of new pages onPlatonists and similar this page (and a companion List of Platonist mathematicians) are inappropriate, some combination of WP:SYNTH, does not have WP:RS to establish statements and are also inappropriate via WP:NPOV. (Articles on mathematical Platonism and/or physical Platonism might be viable, but this is not that.) Original editor contested PROD stating that "concensus was not reached", so now AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, and Mathematics. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Classifying someone as a platonist physicist (or anything else), for the purposes of Wikipedia, requires a reliable secondary source that classifies them specifically as that. Here, we appear to have a complete absence of such sources (not even a self-classification), merely an inference being made by the editor by type of work. In other words, this classification seems to be strictly made by the editor, which violates WP policy. —Quondum 22:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research; topic fails WP:NLIST. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We could only have such a list per WP:NLIST if we have sources discussing Platonist physicists (whatever that might mean) as a group or a set of people. And unlike in mathematics, where mathematical Platonism is a specific, modern, and significant topic in the philosophy of mathematics, I don't even know what physical Platonism is supposed to mean. Does it refer to ancient scientists who were Platonists? Some specific point of view studied in the modern philosophy of physics? The physical existence of the wave function? Something else? My searches didn't turn up anything enlightening. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page boils down to an editor's personal opinion that some things said by a couple physicists and an ex-physicist sound kind of Platonist. I don't like being a buzzkill, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. The topic of physicists espousing views about the philosophy of mathematics could be covered in an encyclopedic manner, but this isn't the way to do that. We don't start with people who are famous on science YouTube and evaluate their philosophical sentiments ourselves. And speaking as a physicist, I don't think one-word tags like "Platonist" (or "formalist" or whatever) are generally helpful. A physicist making one remark that could be read as agreeing with a particular philosophy doesn't mean that they subscribe to that philosophy fully and consistently. XOR'easter (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2024 (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.

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Izno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (65sugg) in violation of ban or block". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Platonist mathematicians

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

Based upon a discussion at WT:Physics#String of new pages onPlatonists and similar this page (and a companion List of Platonist physicists) are inappropriate, some combination of WP:SYNTH, does not have WP:RS to establish statements and are also inappropriate via WP:NPOV. (Articles on mathematical Platonism and/or physical Platonism might be viable, but this is not that.) Original editor contested PROD stating that "concensus was not reached", so now AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, and Mathematics. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As per nom, this is a pretty clear case of an editor doing their own classification of individuals through interpretation of types of work, not directly substantiated by any sources; this is not permitted. —Quondum 22:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research; topic fails WP:NLIST. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The philosophical position is notable. Making a list of mathematicians who said some things that sound Platonist and calling them "Platonist mathematicians" is synthesis, which is not how we build encyclopedia articles. After all, a quote that might seem Platonist could have been taken out of context, a mathematician's thinking might evolve over the years, etc. The right way to cover this topic would be to write an article about mathematical Platonism, and in that article explain who is associated with that position, why, and how. XOR'easter (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I removed some of the more badly synthesized or unsourced material but even so the rest seems more like a synthesis of opinions the editor thought might be related to mathematical Platonism rather than an actual list of people known for advocating mathematical Platonism. And although mathematical Platonism itself is clearly notable, we have no evidence for the notability of classifying people by their mathematical philosophy, such as sources that discuss these people as a group or set as would be required by WP:NLIST. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Move to Mathematical Platonism per discussion cited in nom. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would need a ground-up rewrite to be suitable as an article on that topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This discussion should be concluded as the article in question was already speedied under G5. JekyllTheFabulous (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2024 (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.

Daere Afonya-a Akobo

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

With a puff piece like this, interviews like this and press release like this , all the sources fail WP:GNG. All the awards too are run-of-the-mills . Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sigcov was only found in 1 reliable source, his awards are run-of-the-mill and he clearly fails GNG. Noah ^💬 21:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Puff pieces as explained. Entrepreneur means self-employed in my mind, but he works for someone else. Working in sales and flow measurements, implies this is a CV. Oaktree b (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources to primary or unreliable sources. Independent sources available are not enough to meet the general notability criteria. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Wrong venue. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 17:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wandsbek Studios

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

Studio Hamburg is an existing production company in Germany. See its German language article at de:Studio Hamburg. The existence of the incorrect redirect here forces an error when using the standard interlanguage link template when one attempts to create an ill to the German Wikipedia article 'Studio Hamburg'. Doprendek (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No justification given for deleting the article. If the redirect at Studio Hamburg is the problem, you're welcome to nominate it at WP:RFD. Wikiacc (¶) 22:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: No valid reason for deletion. Wrong venue for inverting a Redirect. A merge is also being discussed on the German Wikipedia. But no deletion is necessary and neither the Redirect nor the Merge should be discussed here. -Mushy Yank. 00:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was a mistake on my part, still not sure how it happened, deletion request was meant for the redirect page 'Studio Hamburg', for reasons given. I wasn't trying to request a delete of the target page. Doprendek (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2024 (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.

Alef (company)

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

DELETE — Failure to meet WP:GNG; insufficient significant coverage in reliable, independent sources and the ones that have been mentioned make no mention of Alef. The company seems to have no notability whatsoever at the moment. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 20:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 20:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it seems as though this was rejected multiple times in AfC: Draft:Alef (company) Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 20:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruz Fletcher

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

The article was previously deleted; it was ‘Created by a banned or blocked user (CarmenEsparzaAmoux) in violation of ban or block’. Due to this, I also believe the author (Keyofz) should be blocked. Diegg24 (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, California, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know the user CarmenEsparzaAmoux. I have been creating and editing Wiki pages for 17 years under this ID and have created over 40 new pages. I recently discovered the work of Bruz Fletcher and feel his historical significance is important and merits a Wiki entry. Keyofz (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would be interested in reading the AFD for the deleted entry and I have no opinion about banning the users mentioned. (Blocks seem out scope for this discussion.) But given that the subject is the focus of at least two historical organizations, an academic journal article, and several contemporary newspaper articles, I think entry meets WP:GNG. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't an AFD discussion for the previously deleted page. It was deleted under speedy deletion criterion G5. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article clearly passes GNG, he has just enough coverage in several reliable sources to meet GNG. Noah ^💬 21:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable. 885 results on Newspapers.com (including [1], [2] and [3]). 18 results on Google Scholar. Add in Google Books. There's enough there. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In agreement with the voters above, though the article's prose needs to be toned down a bit. It appears that the suggestion to block the creator of this version of the article was made without proper investigation. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having arrived at a consensus on notability, can we please remove the AfD flag? Keyofz (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the usual procedure, a deletion discussion remains open for one week in case someone comes along with a different argument. An Admin will make a decision around January 5th, and I bet this article will survive. An uninvolved editor could also invoke the snowball clause if it's really obvious, but patience will eventually be rewarded. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, your perspective is appreciated. Have a happy new year. Keyofz (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Alcuin House

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

This unaccredited seminary has an inactive website and does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. All the (scant) sources in the article are to its own webpages or to affiliated sites. A BEFORE search turns up no evidence of notability. (It appears to have claimed accreditation at different through a diploma mill network and another school that claims accreditation but is also a diploma mill, but neither of these is evidence of notability, and indeed argues against notability as an educational institution.) Regardless, I found zero independent coverage of this organization. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Christianity. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Can't find any (let alone reliable) non-trivial secondary coverage beyond this blog post and this forum discussion, which isn't helpful. This seems to be a safe delete. Jordano^5³ 20:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to WP:NORG. Seems to have been a marginal, unaccredited seminary. I was briefly concerned we were talking about the Alcuin Club! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:NORG, appears to have been operated out of a townhouse according to the defunct organization's Facebook page. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NORG. I note that the editor who created this article[4] also created a separate article about a (supposedly) affiliated university, which I have also nominated for deletion for similar reasons. I also note that this editor has been inactive for over a decade now. Muzilon (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deimantė Kizalaitė

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

Non-notable figure skater. No senior-level international medals; no national championship gold medals. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Lithuania. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Marginally successful junior career and nothing of note as a senior. Sources provided are just result lists and I cannot find any significant coverage of her.

Shrug02 (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malachi Sharpe

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was previously deleted and since then there doesn't appear to be anymore significant coverage for GNG. CNC (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and England. CNC (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. But being from United's youth sectors and called up by the Scotland national team, he tends to establish WP:GNG soon. Svartner (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Playing for the U21 team would require lots of coverage, there just isn't enough here. Sources 4 and 5 sound like SEO sites, the rest appear to be blogs or primary sources. I don't find articles about this individual either. Oaktree b (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey,

I understand that the article about Malachi Sharpe may currently lack sufficient coverage to meet Wikipedia’s notability standards. Before the page is potentially deleted, I wanted to kindly ask if you might have any suggestions or tips on how it could be improved or expanded to better meet those criteria.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. I appreciate any guidance you can provide.

Kind regards, Editor 11927 (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not elaborating in nomination with relevant links. Please see WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT (in particular WP:SPORTBASIC) for establishing notability for the subject. The problem is generally a lack of independent significant coverage from secondary sources, noting that United In Focus would come under fan-site and therefore fails to contribute to this. CNC (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CommunityNotesContributor Is United In Focus a simple fan-site though? Even if it focuses solely on United, this looks to be alot more than just a simple fan blog. It has a rather detailed editorial Policy and significant number of experienced journalists working for them. Alvaldi (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's subjective, I agree with editorial oversight it's beyond a traditional fan site. At the same time it's nothing more than a website for fans, and also lacks the ability to be truly independent from subject. CNC (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject doesn't appear to have the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited from his cousin. May just be a bit WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enigmatic personality

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

Pop-psycho essay-like article. It doesn't properly define what constitutes an "enigmatic personality". The references are to click-bait type websites that don't meet the requirements of WP:RS and that's also what a Google search finds. There's no indication that WP:GNG is met for this topic. Pichpich (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bullet-pointed, clickbait trash. A literature search finds enigmatic personality only being used in the ordinary, colloquial sense, not as an actual specialist term in psychology. XOR'easter (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Agree this is simply colloquial terminology based on the sources cited. Also, I am unable to find any psychological definition for "enigmatic personality." This is conversational terminology and not suitable for an independent article on Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2024 (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 23:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Committee of Concerned Journalists

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was 17 years ago with promises to work on the article. I'm not finding significant coverage and with this organization no longer existing unlikely to be any new sources generated. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Organizations, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing independent WP:SIGCOV for a WP:NORG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per above. Can't find significant coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2024 (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.

Michael Meaney (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - decent Irish coverage available - RTÉ (a little routine but still a headline in a national broadcaster's site indicating national prominence), KCLR (similar to before but not quite as notable as RTÉ), a circa 1k word piece entirely about Meaney and his career in The Kildare Nationalist and another piece of coverage in The Nationalist (Carlow version so separate from the prior newspaper). Of these the Kildare Nationalist piece is strongest and combined the sources indicate regional notability, imv. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources in the first comment from Ireland are enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2029 ICC Champions Trophy

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

This is rather supposed to be a redirect but checking the history will tell you that there are editors who keeps reverting the restoration of the redirect, the very last restoration of redirect was done by me and mine was just reverted by the same user. This is way WP:TOOSOON to qualify for a standalone page right now. Fails WP:GNG, etc. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON; Draftify at least. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 08:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. I oppose moving to draftspace, as draftspace is not an indefinite holding area, and it will be 2+ years (probably longer) until more information is known. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I don’t see WP:TOOSOON is a valid reason for deletion in this instance. According to WP:FUTURE, notable and highly likely future events should be included (such as 2032 Summer Olympics). Given that the venue has already been confirmed, the article could simply be updated or moved after the 2025 edition concludes or closer to that time and so I strongly oppose deletion.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 09:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Way down in the future for year 2029 and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. RangersRus (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Shrug02 (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how WP:CRYSTAL applies here when the event is already announced? FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not sure if WP:TOOSOON applies to such a big event. We already have a page for the 2030 FIFA World Cup and 2034 FIFA World Cup. It is about coverage from independent sources at least for the announcement of the event, and maybe the ongoing preparations. I can see that 3 out of the 4 sources are from the ICC but the event is mentioned in Times of India, SportStar, Free Press Journal, India Express, Sky, The Nation, The Sporting News, and Hindustan Times. FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma: because, it's only the year and hosts that have been confirmed. Qualification and Format haven't been announced yet and could change, thus they are just speculations so, WP:CRYSTAL. Unlike, 2034 FIFA World Cup which at least has more confirmed stuffs rather than speculations. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A wrong understanding of WP:CRYSTAL it seems. There is no requirement that the qualification process or format for future events must be announced in advance for the article to be standalone. Speculation is unfounded, as these competitions are based on clear qualification rounds and verifiable outcomes. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 09:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here, as the event has been announced by reliable, verifiable sources; no speculation involved. And while WP:TOOSOON is a useful essay, it does not overrule WP:GNG and other guidelines when it comes to deletion criteria. Please focus on the notability of the event based on sources, rather than your preference as to when it should be added here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Izno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (65sugg) in violation of ban or block". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruliad Theory of the Universe

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

An article on the same subject was deleted back in April, and the subject has not become notable since. It's still a neologism confined to the Wolfram walled garden. The sourcing on the new one is unacceptable: writings by Wolfram himself are primary and non-independent sources, which we shouldn't use; postings on the arXiv are almost always unusable per WP:SPS, and a book from 2014 can't contribute to the notability of a topic invented years after that. A literature search finds nothing better. (Unsurprisingly.) At most, the coinage ruliad could be mentioned in another article, like at Stephen Wolfram#Wolfram Physics Project, but "Ruliad Theory of the Universe" isn't a viable redirect, either, because nobody (even within Wolfram-world) actually says that.

A prod was removed without explanation, so here we are. XOR'easter (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – as per nom. The lack of notability is clear (through the near-void of external citations). We do not have a separate article about every speculative blog by every notable person. At best this merits a mention in the section Stephen Wolfram § Wolfram Physics Project. —Quondum 19:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ruliad, the previous AfD. I don't think anything has changed in less than a year since then. As I wrote then, "The meager results that I get from a Google Scholar search, mostly not reliably published, fail to convince me that this is anything more than Wolfram promotionalism and neologism." —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources do not seem reliable. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No need to repeat the previous deletion discussion, nothing changed since then. Tercer (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2024 (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.

Bais Chaya elementary school shootings

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

WP:TOOSOON article about an event not yet shown as having the kind of enduring significance needed to graduate from WP:NOTNEWS territory. As always, it isn't Wikipedia's role or goal to maintain an article about every single thing that happens in the world -- we're writing history here, not news, so we would need to see some evidence that the event would pass the ten year test as a matter of long-term significance, which people will still be looking for information about into the 2030s and 2040s and 2050s. But neither the amount of content here nor the amount of sourcing shown to support it establish that this would pass that test yet as of today.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation at a later date if more long-term impact can be shown, but we need to see a lot more than just "this is a thing that happened a couple of days ago". Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Schools. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I created it is there's three shootings that occurred over a period of months. City News alone covered it on May 25 May 27 October 12 October 13 October 18 December 20 Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Antisemitism in Canada where there is already some coverage. The school, itself, does not appear to be notable and the only coverage, in English, appears to be the news coverage about these shootings. As suspects in these shootings are now under arrest, Wikipedia probably should not have a separate article about these shootings until the trial is over. See WP:BLPCRIME. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: I added several additional sources, including coverage of Doug Ford's comment about the first shooting + the reactions to it that immigrants were responsible. The ongoing shootings are a very big news story in Canada as school shootings are not as common here. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that it happened and was documented does not make it notable. We need more than a brief burst of news coverage. Content that amounts to "Responses: person said something" is especially unhelpful. Merging to Antisemitism in Canada would be undue (and honestly most of the random WP:PROSELINE content there probably isn't due either). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facing the Enemy

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. There are no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of erotic thriller films#2001: listed there; notable cast, verifiable, but the director has no page. A standard alternative to deletion is such cases when coverage seems insufficient for a standalone page. -Mushy Yank. 21:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But more citation is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BonitueBera (talk • contribs) 00:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:15, 29 December 2024 (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 moved by an Admin to Sajjad Hussain Palash due to vandalism‎. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mortoza Polash

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

I think this is spam. The main claim to fame is an award for a movie not listed on their IMDB page. This accolade seems to be stolen from someone with a similar name https://www.imdb.com/name/nm15865164/ Bovlb (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Bands and musicians. Bovlb (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Digging into this further, this may be a repurposing of the article as it used to be named "Polash Sajjad", which would correspond better to the award winner. Article moved by @Spicy, but the original change of name is older and by an SPA @KoushikHassan360. So maybe reversion and moving would be better than deletion. Bovlb (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old version restored and moved to Sajjad Hussain Palash. I'd like a second pair of eyes on this, so I'll let another admin close this. Bovlb (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2024 (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.

WiiLink

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

Fails WP:GNG, sourced to primary sources. Best I could find was this single source on a project that merged with them: [5] and this passing mention [6]. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is reliant on primary sources and fails WP:WEBCRIT. Jordano^5³ 18:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant secondary coverage from reliable sources. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

X-Manhunt

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

Current article does not meet the notability criteria outlined at WP:GNG or WP:BOOKCRIT since the pre-release reception section cites the same outlet (Screen Rant) twice & the article's other source (CBR) is mostly just the Marvel press release reprinted. This upcoming comic book event might be notable in the future but isn't at the moment (WP:CRYSTALBALL) and it should be returned to drafts. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to draft article again — Considering that the crossover will occur within three months, it will be promising as editors can add more reliable secondary sources as they are released with time. Mastgods (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plug-in hybrid car energy efficiency

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

Not encyclopedic; Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide. The article is a feature and cost comparison between a selection of vehicles produced 7 to 10 years ago. It consists of only U.S.-market vehicles, and keeping it both up-to-date and complete on an ongoing basis would be impossible. Sable232 (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Sable232 (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The stats could ofcourse be included into the wikipedia pages for the individual car models like is done in Honda Accord (ninth generation)#Honda Accord (ninth generation). Rolluik (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Out-of-date article that probably shouldn't have existed in the first place per WP:NOTDATABASE ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand at the Big Four beauty pageants

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

This merely reiterates the winners tables already found at Miss Thailand World, Miss Universe Thailand, Miss Thailand International, Miss Thailand, Miss Earth Thailand, and related predecessor pageants. Because the contents are pretty much identical (side-by-side presentation of data on participants at the Big Four international beauty pageants, even with identical formatting and all) consensus is pretty much rock solid for deleting them as WP:IINFO and WP:SYNTH, and due to the consensus shown by the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belize at major beauty pageants precedent and 100+ subsequent debates over similar "Country at major beauty pageants" articles, some links at Special:Permalink/1036690997, Special:Permalink/1037877047, and Special:Permalink/1038545583 especially 87 pageant country articles bundled under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France at major beauty pageants.

Bangladesh at major beauty pageants

I am bundling the article(s) listed above for identical reasons. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Thai article has been speedied as G5, though Bangladesh at major beauty pageants is still up for discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relative to that, the remaining article in this nom merely reiterates material found at Miss Bangladesh, Miss Earth Bangladesh , Miss Universe Bangladesh, and Miss World Bangladesh and, in fact, redundant tables for each of those appear at #International pageants. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Olimpia Rotunda

AfDs for this article:

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

This club never played at national level, above the 4th division in Romania and also is dissolved now. Poor sources, low importance. Rhinen (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable club, no reliable secondary sources found. Also fails WP:NPOV, it seems ("had an amazing debut season"). Easy delete in my eyes. Jordano^5³ 18:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Romanian fifth tier club, no corresponding article on other wikis and no sources for WP:V. Svartner (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gate.io

AfDs for this article:

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

An article on a crypto-exchange company, created in March after a previous instance was deleted by AfD in February. Although this instance is not a WP:G4 repost, the text covers much the same ground and most of the references were available for consideration in the Jan 24 AfD. Since then there is a pros-and-cons Business Insider product review, though it is marked Paid non-client promotion. I am unconvinced that the available coverage meets WP:CORPDEPTH - and the special considerations for Crypto - so it seems appropriate to open a discussion on whether or not to overturn the Feb 24 AfD decision as to attained notability. AllyD (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, Hong Kong, and Caribbean. AllyD (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still a non-notable crypto exchange thing. The first four news items uses for sourcing aren't about this exchange, only mentioning it. This is PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2024 (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.

(non-admin closure) The result was Speedy delete. The article had already been speedily deleted by an administrator.‎ Madeleine (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C0dkidd

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

The article is nowhere near notable, and it uses an inappropriate tone for Wikipedia. Diegg24 (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Diegg24 (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article seems to already have been speedily deleted. Madeleine (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2024 (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.

Charbel Shamoon

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

WP:SPORTBASIC says achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level and I think it is WP:TOOSOON to say that is so for this obviously promising player. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, Iraq, and Australia. UtherSRG (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Player is notable at international level and is a regular starter for a team in the highest level of Australian football which itself is a notable league. Keep, is not WP:TOOSOON Nzs9 (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There appears to be WP:SIGCOV with the sources already mentionedin the article. Svartner (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple sources mentioned in the article and there is plenty of detail. Charbel also has started nearly every game in the Australian top flight this season, has played for the Iraq U20 team and has been called up for a training camp for the Australian U23 team as well. Ausfootballfan (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources already present which appear to show notability. Giant Snowman 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan T. Murphy

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

This BLP doesn't feel notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. BlunanNation (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Utah. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He has received non-trivial coverage here and here. According to this deletion discussion, Deseret News is independent enough from the LDS Church to be considered reliable, however this subject has been brought up numerous times, such as this discussion in 2016. I would be lying if I said any sort of consensus has officially been reached. Jordano^5³ 18:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call either link as meeting SIGCOV. The former is overwhelmingly of quotes from Murphy, and is plainly an interview of him. The second is a short press release. Ravenswing 20:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Latter Day Saints, France, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tabernacle Choir#Music directors where Murphy is mentioned, with sources and some relevant information which I just added. Couldn't find any additional coverage beyond the one article I included there from Ensign, and I agree with Ravenswing about the lack of SIGCOV from the two Deseret News articles mentioned above. The first piece doesn't even say that much about Murphy, just asks his thoughts on an unrelated incident that happened to take place in his hometown (which of course was a very notable incident, but regardless, the connection is tenuous). Unopposed to a delete without redirect if it is preferred. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Vishwakarma

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

No reliable sources are available on google, I also tried searching in Regional languages but got nothing. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Taabii (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine and India. Taabii (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The highlighted individual meet WP:GNG under WP:SNG. A former director of the Indian Institute of Integrative Medicine ([7]) qualify under WP:NPROF and WP:NACADEMIC (#8) criteria. In addition, a search in Google Scholar reveal several scientific articles that have been credited to or published in collaboration with the same individual ([8], [9], [10] and [11]). The article however, require improvement and addition of sources. QEnigma (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As a former director of IIIM he does not automatically qualify. The staff is about 68 PhD/Dr, with a modest budget of about $0.5M (it goes further in India). Just as a Dean at a university is not automatic, he is not -- but it is a partial notability. In terms of publications his h-factor of 62 is strong, but it is a high citation field. (The 20th person in drug discovery has an h-factor of 118, and it is more an exponential than linear relationship.) The two together just about persuade me that he passes WP:NPROF, the criteria the nom used are not really appropriate. For certain the page needs work.
Delete: I can't find coverage that can clarify his notoriety.. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Moody

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple articles on glenn moody northernecho and glenn moody gazettelive searches on google plus glenn moody theguardian is a strong one tooCanary757 (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
five references added to the article now from three different sources.Canary757 (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references added to article. Further coverage can be found in The Mirror (admittedly no consensus for reliability but the coverage indicates notability), Evening Gazette and a bit in the darts publication Dartn.de. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Datamatics

AfDs for this article:

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Software, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This subject does not seem notable and lacks news coverage from independent reliable sources. Mysecretgarden (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Myles Bright

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

Non notable, fails GNG, routine and database references only. Minimal pro career. Canary757 (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Canary757 (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voter turnout in the European Parliament elections

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

This article reads like an essay, and indeed was one written for a university assignment. The topic could probably be covered in sufficient detail in a new section in Elections to the European Parliament rather than being a heavily padded-out standalone article. Number 5 7 13:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are issues with this article, but deletion of this article is no solution as this is a topic worthy of retention on wikipedia BlunanNation (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The voice is certainly more academic than encyclopedic and I usually dislike new articles from students, but there's a decent amount of good content here, as well as a lot of solid sources specifically on the topic. Much better than most assignments I see! It could use clean up and trimming, but not cut so much that a merge makes more sense. Reywas92^Talk 16:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jim_Leisy

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jim Leisy

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

I believe Jim Leisy fails the WP:GNG criteria. Not enough independent secondary sourcing to prove notability.

The majority of the article is unsourced self-promotion. According to the one reference in the article the artist won a 'Caldera Gold Spot Award' but I can find no explanation of what that is or how notable it might be. He also has a work catalogued by the Smithsonian https://www.si.edu/object/solar-eclipse:nasm_A20170021000 that was gifted by the artist.

Additionally, there appears to be WP:COI from Leisy himself, creating the page in the first place, removing other editors' issue taggs without fixing issues, and multiple edits of the page under User:Jimleisy.

SallyRenee (talk) 12:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing in the Getty ULAN [12], nor much of any mention for a photographer with this name. Nothing in the article shows notability. I don't find any book reviews. Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The COI editing doesn't help, but the subject has been deceased for a decade, I don't really think it matters much at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erzya-Moksha Autonomy

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

Extremely dubious original research concocted by Numulunj pilgae (talk · contribs) in 2022, who created lots of mess in articles related to Mordvins (Erzya/Moksha) I am slowly cleaning. --Altenmann >talk 12:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Desi words

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

Poorly written article. If improved, it would still contradict WP:NOTDICT. Nxcrypto Message 12:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and India. Nxcrypto Message 12:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems to be a perfectly notable topic, see Scholar. Goes far beyond a Dictionary entry!!! -Mushy Yank. 01:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Furthermore in popular usage "Desi word" means totally different than what it's written in the article.CharlesWain (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Željka Krizmanić

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Croatia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability, no sources provided and I cannot find any significant coverage of this skater. Would be interested to know why the PROD was removed as no reason given in the edit summary.
Shrug02 (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Doneria

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

Non-notable BLP. Lacks significant coverage Wp:SIGCOV in multiple independent WP:INDEPENDENT reliable sources WP:RS. Zuck28 (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Hinduism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Leader of an organization with over 10 million members. (As per India TV https://www.indiatvnews.com/uttar-pradesh/bajrang-dal-neeraj-doneria-claims-its-members-saved-86-lakh-cows-from-being-slaughtered-love-jihad-against-hindu-woman-muslim-up-news-2023-05-28-873040) 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 04:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Barker

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

This has existed for 18 years without a single source which is actually about the actor, and I can't find any sources that are actually about her, as opposed to her being mentioned in articles about her father. Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK to delete (and recommend deletion rather than redirect, as there are other people with the same name who may be more notable). There actually are more negative reviews of the play her father wrote for her, like "Daddy's girl could do without his help" in The Financial Times. But these are arguably not really about her (the FT review says things like "on this terrain it is hard to judge how good an actress she is"), and otherwise she is mentioned in passing in her father's obituaries and articles about her fugitive brother facing child porn charges. Does not meet WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juni Marie Benjaminsen

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

Non-notable figure skater; provided sources relate to her siblings, who may or may not be notable, but notability is not inherited. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Norway. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability and sources fall well below the required significant standard.
Shrug02 (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula Grand Prix wins by Sebastian Vettel

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

Duplication of the List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Sebastian Vettel article, which is currently in the process of being deleted as well. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – It's actually the other way around, this article was created two minutes before the other one (presumably the editor in question realised the error in the title but did not know how to move the article). Regardless, I'm sure there's a pragmatic interpretation of CSD § G4 or § A10 that would allow this to be cleared up quickly enough. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per 5225C above. Regardless of the resolution at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Sebastian Vettel, this was obviously created by mistake. MSport1005 (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - created in error Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as fast as a F1 car. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 23:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farakka Port

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

The existence of this port is questionable due to a serious lack of sources. A Google search yields no results for the so-called "Farakka Port". The cited sources in the article refer instead to a Farakka inland waterway, used for transporting coal to the Farakka Super Thermal Power Station near the Farakka Barrage. It seems it is actually referring to a floating terminal listed here. In any case, the topic fails to meet WP:GNG. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, India, and West Bengal. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge some supported content to a section in Farakka. - Davidships (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is not a lot of coverage in English, but it's enough to verify, and combine with significant coverage in Bengali, and it passes GNG. I added another English language source. I've been redirecting and merging a lot of unsourced Indian-related stubs, but this is an easy keep. Bearian (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biba Apparels

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MyG

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reelmonk

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Licious

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Internet, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics of simulated suffering

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

Does not appear to be a robust philosophical concept needing its own article. Two sources provided are self-published and not covered by reliable independent sources. The "connection to catostrphic risks" seems like WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and not directly supporting the notability of the concept itself. If anything, a brief mention of ethical concerns in simulated reality seems sufficient. ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the concept is notable enough in itself. But some of it could probably be merged into the article ethics of uncertain sentience. Alenoach (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:SYNTH-y, navel-gazing cruft. XOR'easter (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - seems page is recently created and looks WP:SYNTH as noted above, but this is a growing field in philosophy - maybe template/category for stubs (philosophy, tech, ethics?) can be added? Asteramellus (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a stub notice isn't a fix for the problem. XOR'easter (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - only reason I thought it might help with stub is bring attention to the page to get some more edits possibly. Asteramellus (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biometric Consortium

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

Non-notable program. Per a WP:BEFORE], there is no WP:SIGCOV, only routine coverage of conference announcements. Longhornsg (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a source like that, it is valid that it remains. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[13] is a WP:MILL WP:BLOG and not a WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Books on the Delhi Metro

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

This non-profit organization fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with reasons Asteramellus (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South Asia Analysis Group

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

This non-profit organization fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Data Security Council of India

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

This non-profit organization fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Another alternative is to merge with NASSCOM. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Maybe Weak Keep, if others have strong reasons to not-keep) - Although the wiki page is not quite developed, seems notable and secondary sources are using information produced by them. e.g. see this and others at google search. Asteramellus (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Data Security Council of India (DSCI) meets Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline, Organization Notability Guideline, and Government Entity Notability Guideline.

Notability: DSCI is a government-recognized body and widely covered by reliable sources such as [India Today](https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/2024-a-year-of-data-leaks-espionage-and-ddos-attacks-ransomware-data-breach-2654230-2024-12-23) and Google News (https://news.google.com).
As an initiative by NASSCOM and endorsed by the Indian government, DSCI plays a significant role in data privacy and cybersecurity in India. While the article would benefit from better structure and citations, these are editing issues, not valid grounds for deletion. The article should be retained and improved, not deleted.

Cameremote (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Nuvoco Vistas Corporation

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are some of the best sources I could find. Some coverage is from the time when the company was called "Lafarge India". I'm wary of paid news but the Indian sources don't seem to me to be paid or PR. [14] [15] [16] [17] Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Birla Sun Life Asset Management

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of civil disobedience

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

This is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of random examples of a very large concept, organized by country with some extra random sections on religion and climate change... it's a mess that is effectively a random list of poorly organized examples from the large category. It makes about as much sense as having examples of science fiction books or examples of famous people articles. If scholars discuss particularly famous cases of civil disobedience, those can and should be first covered in the main article, and split only here if we have too many such examples (which is not the case, this is just linked bizarrely from the "Choices" section of the main article, which is not about examples but about aspects of theory). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have lists already listing protests and riots. This list things that don't have their own articles, so aren't notable, just random examples by the whim of a single editor. There is Category:Civil disobedience, showing far more things on it than this list does, and has subcategories listing things into categories for three nations that have the most entries. Dream Focus 19:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We have an article about civil disobedience. A list of examples helps to explain that concept. The main article is already long, so a separate article makes sense. It could be renamed "list of" or somesuch, and inclusion criteria should be better documented, but I don't have a hard time seeing this as passing WP:LISTN. The topic being very large is a good reason to keep this split rather than list examples in the main article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of civil disobedience movements and keep. The main Civil disobedience is too big. Azuredivay (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Azuredivay We should first have an article on civil disobedience movement. Right now it is just a (bad) redirect. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But is that a distinct enough topic from civil disobedience? In that case, I have corrected the target of that redirect to Civil disobedience. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Civil disobedience. Azuredivay (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Returns from Troy

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

All of the references are primary sources - i can find no secondary sources about the concept, ie actual discussions of "returns from Troy". Doug Weller talk 08:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR; no significant coverage from secondary sources. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The returns from Troy are widely discussed, but more often with the term "nostoi" (which is also the name of a lost epic poem about the subject. one option might be to merge this into that, but they aren't actually the same because plenty of return myths cannot be surely traced to the lost epic poem). Examples of scholarly discussion:

Evelyn-White, Hugh G. (1910). "The Myth of the Nostoi". The Classical Review. 24 (7): 201–205. ISSN 0009-840X.
Malkin, Irad (1998). The Returns of Odysseus: Colonization and Ethnicity. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-92026-2., especially the introductory discussion of the importance of myths of return in the development of ancient Greek colonization.
Hornblower, Simon; Biffis, Giulia (2018). The Returning Hero: nostoi and Traditions of Mediterranean Settlement. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-253941-0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furius (talk • contribs)

Keep: For the reasons stated above. The problem is not that there is a lack of significant coverage; the problem is that it needs adding to the page. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Bickell

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

Non-notable person. Although he holds a high position in a large company, there is barely anything in the media about him. Kingturtle = (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bickell has been covered by The Sunday Times and The Telegraph, both of which are notable sources considered to be reliable per community consensus. In addition, though no consensus has been reached on its general reliability, this piece from The Evening Standard could also arguably be considered this as well. In all three, he is primarily featured, not trivially mentioned. Because of that, I believe he meets the criteria for WP:NBIO. Jordano^5³ 07:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Telegraph and Evening Standard sources above are fine, Sunday Times is more of an extended interview, but we have enough for notability I think. Oaktree b (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah L. Turbiville

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

A person only notable for one event. And, per WP:CRIM, she is not well known, and the motivation for her crime does not appear unusual. {{Sam S|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 04:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Texas. {{Sam S|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 04:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•I agree that this page is not relevant and should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:4E3C:CC10:0:0:0:1F (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, Sexuality and gender, England, and Belize. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an event-specific page. The event seems to pass WP:NCRIME guidelines, with in-depth coverage from reliable local and national news sources like CNN and NYT. While the person is not notable, I see no reason why the information about the event can't be kept. Jordano^5³ 07:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible targets include: History of vice in Texas, Crime in Houston, Brothel#United States, Prostitution in the United States#21st century {{Sam S|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 04:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the first article listed to be the best, as it has more instances of specific events and incidents than the others. Fitting in this story would likely be easiest there. Jordano^5³ 06:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect and, if so, what the target article should be. Whatever article should have at least a mention of this article subject on it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRIM. The article states that the subject was arrested, but not what happened after that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing WP:SUSTAINED coverage for the crime itself, just a single news cycle. This article falls under BLP1E and should not be merged anywhere. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August Capital

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Tagged for multiple issues. Was previously deleted per AFD. Imcdc Contact 03:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 03:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:NORG and WP:SIRS). QEnigma talk 16:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously brought to AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic-Pacific Capital

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Tagged for multiple issues for years. Imcdc Contact 03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and Connecticut. Imcdc Contact 03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:NORG and WP:SIRS) criteria. QEnigma talk 15:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Esti92 (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only coverage I could find were WP:ROUTINE mentions in the trades, nothing to notch WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Khair University

AfDs for this article:

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

It does not meet the criteria of WP:ORG or WP:GNG. The article was deleted in 2020 and recreated in 2021, but in my view, the school has not achieved sufficient notability to justify recreating the article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a ton of WP:NEWSORGINDIA to sift through but I found this. Their notability may be from being part of a diploma mill.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um ... WP:NEWSORGINDIA is not about Pakistan. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable diploma mill. Scammed a lot of innocent students, attracted a lot of media coverage, and even military official received its degree to become NAB director. Very notable per CNMall41. 103.194.93.34 (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than adequate sourcing available to satisfy the GNG + a bit of HEY...not sure how it's possible to miss the multiyear coverage of this notorious institution. While AfD is not clean up, the article could not be left to stand as it was and I have cleaned it up. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing I can find meet the GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. It hit the news at one stage for being a diploma mill but most of that coverage was focussed on the crime, not the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"at one stage"? There's multi-year RS coverage going back a decade (and more) in English (I've not done any searching in Urdu): eg 2021 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2015, 2004. Whether focussed on "crime" or "company"(?) (it's a university), the content of the coverage is not relevant to notability questions. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect to say that "the content of the coverage is not relevant". The guidelines that apply to companies/organizations (private universities) is GNG/WP:NCORP. See WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH which clearly speak to the *content* - for example, a requirement is for in-depth information *about the company* and the article must contain *independent* *content*. We don't care about the volume of "coverage", we actually care about the quality of content in order to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Worth noting previous deletion was a soft delete on PROD/TNT basis, notability was not discussed. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'll also note that the previous AFD had participation from only one editor, the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Private universities should meet WP:NORG, which means that we need significant coverage at WP:ORGDEPTH about the institution. We have quite a lot of news coverage about the university, which, for instance, set up illegal campuses [18] and was indeed a diploma mill per the above. Coverage such as this [19] does indeed mention the university, but not at ORGDEPTH. This is a general problem. The sources are all about the mismanagement and illegal activities and not about the university itself. My feeling is that we don't have the sources for a university article, but we do have the sources for an article about either diploma mills in general, or perhaps about the event of this diploma mill in particular - and moreso because it seems to have created a bit of a storm in its resolution. I would be open to redirect targets. But I really cannot decide between straight delete of this article (which has nothing worth saving) or keep with the assumption this could be renamed and repurposed. The problem with deletion is not that the article would be deleted, but that the sources found in the AfD would lose visibility. The problem with keeping the article as it is lies in the possibility that this might languish and then be developed as if the encyclopaedic subject is the university, rather than the scandal. I am also reluctant to add a keep !vote when I think no consensus may be a better outcome. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of feudalism

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

This seems to be a WP:CONTENTFORK of feudalism, with seemlingly randomly chosen case studies (WP:INDISCRIMIANTE), haphazardly grouped (particularly considering the weirdly named section "Modern traces" which seems to be "random stuff that did not fit into the two other sections"). There is no need for such an article to exist; at best it can be redirected/merged to the parent article (WP:ATD-R, WP:ATD-M). The main article on feudalism is actually not too long, and is missing a 'by country' overview, which seems to be the way this organized, so merge might be best. If kept as a separate article (but why?), this needs to be renamed, although I am not sure how (Feudalism by country?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was somewhat astonished upon checking the revision history statistics to find myself top editor by character count, despite having edited only one section over the summer (and probably due to the citations I added). This article already seems like it was split off from Feudalism as a daughter article, which I think it sort of might have been?
I think the main problem here (this topic) is that feudalism is a term with a specific technical meaning, but its meaning has been broadened over the years to apply to a number of systems of territorial administration that are not technically feudal, but where the feudalism label can act as a useful heuristic. The main article doesn't do a great job differentiating what feudalism ism and isn'tm, and the article under discussion here serves that purpose, as well as hosting a bunch of hatnotes that would probably otherwise end up in a list article somewhere or in Feudalism#See also.
I'm not 100% on straight merging into Feudalism: I think the examples of legit, consensus feudal societies could be worked into the main article, but without counterexamples of not-quite-feudal societies (which don't really belong in the main article), it will act as a magnet for that stuff. I'm real big on the concept of excellent list articles (like Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway), which I propose at every major notability discussion about our surfeit of microstubs (like WP:LUGSTUBS et seq.), and this article has the potential to become a great list article. It almost is, except for the title and structure. I also recognise I absolutely will not have the time to restructure it into an excellent list article unless this discussion is relisted at least four times. So I could see any of the following actions: retitle, partial merge, complete merge, temporary redirect until it can be sorted out, or keep.
For now, Folly Mox (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is No consensus here at all, just a multitude of suggestions. User:Folly Mox do you have one outcome that seems primary to you?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of in vitro transdifferentiation by lineage-instructive approach

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

This appears well-referenced, but no reference mentions the term "lineage-instructive" in their heading. It is not obvious this meets WP:NLIST. Further, there is no criteria given for why those particular examples are included (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Perhaps per WP:ATD-R this could be merged and redirected to transdifferentiation, which is not too long. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Back in May 2012, User:Ilee0913 created two articles, this one (Examples of in vitro transdifferentiation by lineage-instructive approach) and its sister Examples of in vitro transdifferentiation by initial epigenetic activation phase approach. The pairing makes it clear that the odd phrasing is simply a marker for the different selections in the two articles. As nom says, the sourcing is robust. It may be that the two could simply be merged, with 'By lineage-instructive approach' becoming one chapter, and 'By initial epigenetic activation phase approach' becoming another chapter. In that case the merged article should be titled Examples of in vitro transdifferentiation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap I think "Examples of..." is a pretty bad type of Wikipedia article (almost as bad as "Instruction to..."). Merge is a good idea, but why hot merge both to transdifferentiation? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, if it doesn't unbalance the article under a load of examples. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap Well, is a list of examples even encyclopedic? Smacks of WP:OR. What criteria has been used to select these examples? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the criteria will disappear under a merge, so the question is academic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support to a Merge and also to determine what the Merge target article is actually being suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't merge: I'm sorry to derail the growing Merge consensus, but the content of this article simply isn't encyclopedic. Transdifferentiation gives a summary of the methods used to induce transdifferentiation, with a few well-chosen examples (though we should delete the "Here is a list of examples" statements from that article). This list is a bunch of context-free citations to primary literature; anyone who understands what each entry means would probably consult a review article, rather than Wikipedia, if they need examples. Redirect seems pointless because this is such an unlikely search term. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2024 (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 redirect‎ to Group (mathematics)#Examples and applications. History preserved in page history for attribution purposes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of groups

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

Unreferenced arbitrary (WP:INDISCRIMINATE) collection of examples. Fails WP:V, WP:GNG. Also seems redundant to FA Group (mathematics); even the lead says plainly: "examples of groups in mathematics are given on Group (mathematics). Further examples are listed here". If kept, this probably should be renamed to List of groups in mathematics, but it would need referencing and sources showing how it could meet WP:NLIST, and clear rationale why some examples are shown here and not in the main prose FA article. Do we need a technically infinite list of examples of groups? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As nom stated, this is redundant of the article Group (mathematics). Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator and follow up response. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essentially redundant to the main article. That being said, there's probably a reasonable navigational list to be had for our various articles on specific groups and types/classes of groups, but this isn't even remotely that. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (though I am not opposed to a renaming). desmay (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Dihedral group of order 8 redirects to the dihedral group of order 8 section here. Assuming this article is deleted, we'll probably want a standalone article on D₄, just as we have for D₃. It'll be easiest if we can repurpose info from this article, such as the Cayley table from Examples of groups#Normal subgroup, as well as the Cayley graph (cube version) from the main section. However, to accomplish that while preserving article history, we would need to conduct an article split prior to deletion. Could the AfD closer do this, or does it need to be done beforehand? (In which case please let me know, I'm happy to do it myself.) Preimage (talk) 02:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Preimage It might be best to do it beforehand; closers are often too busy or uninterested in such actions. As for preserving of history for attribution, this could be done by redirecting this instead of hard deleting (perhaps to Group (mathematics)). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to List of mathematical groups. WP:V is not an issue because the group theory literature is enormous. I could easily see this as becoming the article to link to with {{main article}} from List of group theory topics#Basic types of groups, which lists a number of other groups that could be expanded on. Duckmather (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider the Redirection suggestion which might be necessary for attribution purposes. A closer might close this as Delete so if you want to preserve any content, do it now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Group (mathematics)#Examples and applications: To preserve the article history. This article should not be moved to List of mathematical groups as almost no text in the present version would be usable. It contains way too much instructive prose for indiscriminately chosen examples. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Piotrus and @Liz. I've now copied the D₄ content to Draft:Dihedral group of order 8, and there's a clear consensus to delete, so I guess someone (the closer?) just needs to redirect to Group (mathematics)#Examples and applications as suggested by @Helpful Raccoon.
I've chosen to draftify because I'm not a group theory expert and the article isn't yet in a clean enough state to put on main. I'm also uncertain how much value it adds over the existing articles Dihedral group of order 6 and Dihedral group. One option would be to make it into another "elementary group theory" article, analogous to D₃, which I guess I can do if people think it would be useful.
Lastly, the main Dihedral group article should mention $D_{n}\simeq \mathbb {Z} _{n}\rtimes \mathbb {Z} _{2}$ , as detailed in Semidirect product#Dihedral group; I'll also try and make this change. Preimage (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Group (mathematics)#Examples and applications in order to preserve the edit history for attribution purposes. Draft:Dihedral group of order 8 is not currently ready for prime time; it needs editing for encyclopedic tone and the addition of appropriate sources, at the very least. XOR'easter (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2024 (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.

Kamna Pathak

AfDs for this article:

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

Looking at the sources, it does not pass WP:GNG even. Mostly all the sources available on google are discussing her replacement in a notable show, see [20], [21], [22]. Taabii (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Entertainment, India, and Madhya Pradesh. Taabii (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Happu_Ki_Ultan_Paltan#Cast: as the nominator indicates she is best known for that role and coverage attesting of that exists. -Mushy Yank. 10:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Happu_Ki_Ultan_Paltan#Cast. Not opposed to Delete. RangersRus (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The actress has worked in multiple notable TV shows, a primary Google search results indicate significant coverage in reliable sources. Zuck28 (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zuck28 Thanks for your comment, for a better understanding i appreciate you to please present those RS here? Happy editing. Taabii (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few sources and updated the article, I will try to improve to the article in my free time.

Zuck28 (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now adequately sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott Most of the sources are Interviews, kindly check it. — Taabii (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are quite poor and not independent of the subject with claims and interviews. Subject fails the criteria for WP:NACTOR who did not have significant roles in "multiple" notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. RangersRus (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are reliable, and the subject is well-researched with verifiable claims.

𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 04:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion on the sources added. Keep !votes, kindly comment based on our P&Gs and after giving a detailed analysis of the sources based on those P&Gs with a clear rationale why the article should be kept, not mere statements saying the sources are good.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Happu_Ki_Ultan_Paltan#Cast: Has only one notable role, so it's more appropriate to redirect, fails WP:NACTOR. I'm also open to deletion, as most sources are interviews (decent coverage, yet do not establish notability).--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 18:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No valid secondary sources to prove WP:GNG. TitCrisse (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything but interviews for this lady. No independent coverage. She has acted in one TV show, and what looks like an extra(?) in a film. I have done a search (searches from the UK aren't always good these days), I would be happy to re-evaluate my vote if idependent sources can be found. At the moment, this article doesn't demonstrate it complies with WP:GNG.Knitsey (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree it should be Redirect to Happu_Ki_Ultan_Paltan#Cast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendrea44 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A source assessment would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

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

With a recent expansion of what is considered "unrealized", it's really gotten to a point I have realized these articles largely stand to be rather WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. As higlighted by @Erik:, "if a so-called "unrealized project" is not talked about in retrospect, it has little value", and as per WP:IINFO, ""To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Just a contemporary news article about a filmmaker being attached to so-and-so, with no later retrospective commentary, does not strike me as discriminate encyclopedic content to have". Having created this particular article myself, I no longer see this page being of note, and is just a trivial list of several projects, whether they were notable or not, that never came to be, their development or attempted production not being of vital note. Rusted AutoParts 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Lists, and Italy. Skynxnex (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A perfectly standard page, with sources. WP:SPLITLIST applies. -Mushy Yank. 01:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: A good article, well formatted and written out and perfectly and completely worthy of it's own existence, with enough projects to constitute having an article of it's own to compile them all. Therefore, it is indeed a "page of note" and unworthy of deletion. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Burn it to ashes, and then burn the ashes, per WP:LISTCRIT (what constitutes "unrealized" is horribly vague), WP:NOTGOSSIP (so-and-so was rumored to be working on such-and-such), and the really excellent nomination statement. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Luca Guadagnino – similar to my !vote at the AfD for David Ayer's unrealized projects, these types of projects can be covered better within the context of the filmmaker's entire career (see WP:PAGEDECIDE). Some of these projects are fairly trivial and could be cut, but that can be resolved through normal editing and discussion processes. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number of projects is too vast to merge. And too many of them are "of note" to warrant "cutting" as you suggested. As I've said before, this belief of "irrelevance" of these articles is just incorrect. I see no difference than if it were a career biography. In a career bio, bits and pieces of information are taken from various sources to sum up a person's career, and for an Unrealized Projects page, various pieces of information about films/projects that were unproduced are taken and compiled together. A career bio, should include information from that person's career, and ideally, if they're a filmmaker, have a note or background on every film they made. This is true of most articles. Every film is listed out and explained in order. So therefore, for a page which Unrealized Projects is the main subject, everything should be included that is KNOWN. Just as with a career biography ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page size of Luca Guadagnino is about 2500 words; this page is about 1500 words, which could easily be fit into that article (the general threshold to consider a WP:SIZESPLIT is somewhere around 6000 to 8000 words). And many of these sections could be trimmed; we don't need beat-by-beat details of the production history (actor announcements, writer announcements, etc.). For instance, there is as much coverage of Rio here as there is about Bones and All in the main biography, even though the former was just an announcement and the latter was a project he saw all of the way through. Hence why I feel this information could be incorporated into the main article about his career. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I feel there are so many that they warrant having their own page. Many and several of these projects have also been mentioned in MANY outside sources "as a group or set" and therefore satisfies WP:LISTN. Case in point. I'm just a broken record here at this point. No special reason for this article to be deleted. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The article is written appropriately and the current definition of "unrealized" is quite vague. Deleting this article would also give the precedence for deleting dozens of other articles that have the same features, such as Martin Scorsese's Nils2088 (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Nil2088 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN. This list has been discussed “as a group or a set” at ThePlaylist.net and The Film Experience. The Film Creator (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that The Film Creator (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
I don't think those websites are referring to this page, they're referencing the projects independently. Wikipedia is not mentioned in either source. Rusted AutoParts 18:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The projects have been discussed as a group or set and published in articles, and are therefore worthy of having their own Wikipedia page. That was the entire point. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They literally said "This list"..... Even then, just talking about a failed project doesn't make the histroy of that project that important, unless the project is a long gestating one. Such as the production history for The Flash, or the development on the Akira live action remake. Rusted AutoParts 19:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As in, the actual projects featured on "this list". ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the expansion of my comment. Rusted AutoParts 19:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's an opinion. More information could come into light in the future about each project. Some projects have loads of information, others do not. Just as career information in a career bio has an abundance of information, and others do not. This does not mean the others should not be included. Case in point. Since the projects are listed "as a group or set" in many, many, many other articles, the list passes WP:LISTN. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of Guadagnino's unrealized projects are tiny blurbs. The only ones that stand out as noteworthy are Find Me, maybe Scarface and Brideshead Revisited. Buddenbrooks, Lord of the Flies, Leading Men, Sgt. Rock and American Psycho are all projects he is still noted as working on, thus making them unapplicable to the page. Why is it pertinent to know that he was once attached to a film called Burial Rites in 2017, but nothing ever came of it? Why Swan Lake? Being a list doesn't inherently make it notable or necessary. We used to have a list of all the films granted permission to film during the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike, it was eventually removed because it wasn't noteworthy. Rusted AutoParts 19:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of the last example you mentioned. I would agree with that removal, because the films were granted permission to be 'realized'. However I would pose the question if there is a section of all the projects that were officially cancelled and never picked back up again as result of the 2023 strike? That would be a section to warrant keeping/having. Again, I'm not sure how else to explain it, just like a filmmaker's career bio lists out the background of every film they worked on (no matter how little the film, compared to how big the film, or how little information there is on this subject, as opposed to the amount of information on the other), they should still all be included because it is apart of the director's career. The same is true of unmade films, if it was an idea they had and was mentioned in an article-list it, official offers-list it, a project they worked on for five years-list it, a one-off article mentioning a project they were attached to-list it, etc. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note that @ZanderAlbatraz1145: is currently canvassing for votes. See here. Rusted AutoParts 19:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here as well. Rusted AutoParts 19:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And again. 2 of the 3 messaged have voted inline with Zander. Rusted AutoParts 19:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverted my close and relisting per requests on my Talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolis

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

This article has lots of references, but there is no definition of "metropolis", so it is essentially a discussion of the etymology and a prose list of some big cities. The etymology belongs on Wiktionary, not as a WP article. The list is far less useful than List of largest cities and the like, since there are no clear criteria for inclusion. There is no potential for the article to grow beyond this, because unlike mega city and megalopolis, there is no agreed definition for "metropolis"; it's just a synonym for "big city".

(Any deletion would probably involve merging or redirecting with Metropolis (disambiguation), which obviously should remain) Furius (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Economics, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This might be a case of WP:TNT but I don't think we will benefit much from deletion. Shankargb (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that once WP:TNT was complete there would simply be nothing left. What do you think would be the content of this page after clean up? Furius (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Metropolitan area. Agree with nom that there's no consistent definition and little substantive overview content, most of which is redudant to what's in the other article. Many of the country-by-country listings are pretty blah, just listing cities and populations with more prose than necessary. Reywas92^Talk 15:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not in good shape at the moment but the concept of a "metropolis" is trivially notable. Astaire (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is it? This is like having an article on tome when we already have book. Furius (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Agree with @Reywas92 that the content is mostly redundant with metropolitan area Earlsofsandwich (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Majoka

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

Googling "Majoka" "tribe" -wikipedia, I find nothing relevant. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Punjab, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article on this topic on Urdu wiki seems pretty extensive, but mostly unsourced. Furius (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to look in google books for details, but very few sources. Maybe non-english sources are there. Asteramellus (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not many sources available, e.g. tired google books. Asteramellus (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]