Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Purge

29 January 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

< January 28 January 30 >

Purge server cache

Genlin

[edit]
Genlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly promotional and of very questionable notability over a WP:SUSTAINED period. Amigao (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Agree that the article as written seems quite promotional in tone, and it seems there might possible be conflict on interest concerns, but those are both things to be fixed through editing, not AfD nominations. If you want to go through and reword all the promotional parts, have at it. There seems to be more than enough coverage to establish notability though (some sources aren’t great, but there are enough that are to establish notability). As for WP:SUSTAINED arguments… I see sources from 2016 - 2024 so I can’t see how it applies here? Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, definitely needs cleanup but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Keep but WP:STUBIFY is appropriate. DCsansei (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article seems to have a circular logic to it. Genlin is notable for funding World Dog Alliance, but I cannot find RS to show World Dog Alliance is notable. The whole table in the middle Contributions by Genlin/ World Dog Alliance conflates the two and can be considered original research.

for example The joint efforts of Genlin and lobbyists succeeded in convincing Republic Congressman Jeff Denham to include a ban on dog meat consumption into the 2018 Farm Bill passed on 12 December 2018 in the House of Representatives. The bill obtained bipartisan support, notably from Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings, who had earlier co-sponsored a separate bill to Congress (H.R. 1406 - To amend the Animal Welfare Act to prohibit the slaughter of dogs and cats for human consumption[1]) to ban consumption of dog and cat meat but did not succeed in garnering enough support for a standalone bill on animal rights. The 2018 Farm Bill was successfully passed alongside with other agricultural and food policies. the footnote is to the actual bill which does not mention either Genlin or World Dog Alliance. Many other blocks of text in the table do the same thing, state that Genlin has affected some sort of change without proper citations. I cannot see how this article can be stubified. I am hampered by lack of Chinese. I realize that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, but this falls under WP:TNT.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wouldn't the passage cited as original research be essentially the same as those promotional parts that Absurdum4242 had already suggested for re-wording / taking out? To suggest taking down the entire page because of those parts seems drastic when the rest of the page is properly referenced. This would be more WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP to me rather than WP:TNT. As previous commentators suggested, there are enough references that are good enough here albeit in different languages. Genlin is Chinese / Japanese, and it must be expected that some of his related sources will be Chinese. With instant translation easier than ever on most browsers, language barrier seems to be a very low bar to suggest for page deletion in my opinion. As for the point about the passage being circular and Genlin being conflated with Word Dog Alliance, I have found another source from 2024 on Chosun Daily (Korea's largest newspaper media, printed in Korean) which is a feature article on the works of both. If a reputable media can print a story about the two together because the two are inherently close, I cannot see why it should pose a reason for suggesting this page be taken down. Here is the link to article I mentioned (please forgive my relative lack of Wiki finesse here meaning I cannot put this into a reference section) -- https://www.chosun.com/international/2024/02/27/ODZKDBS6QJG4NOAZFTST4SQJH4/
The same article would also seem to suggest that Genlin is in fact close with Jeff Denham (quoted in the block of texts in question) as the two travel together to South Korea to meet the Korean legislators there to discuss laws to stop the dog meat trade. That being said the particular passage in question still lacks proper citations and I do agree a few other parts of the page also needs rewriting / taken out and/or better citations. EAWDA (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another source on the BBC from 2018 quoting World Dog Alliance. This source was not cited on this Wiki page but I reckon it adds to the point about it being notable.
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-45085514 EAWDA (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Text - H.R.1406 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): To amend the Animal Welfare Act to prohibit the slaughter of dogs and cats for human consumption". www.congress.gov. 23 March 2017. Retrieved 18 January 2025.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per my reply to WomenArtistUpdates above (didn't realize the existence of a 3rd discussion at the time of my posting, so my entries above should've been posted here given the timing of my comments was after this 3rd discussion started. If anyone feels it necessary for me to delete my comments above and repost them here please let me know). EAWDA (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments EAWDA has !voted twice. I stand by my opinion that this is article does not show notability of either Genlin or World Dog Alliance. Below is a source assessment table which shows the number of primary sources, press releases, and irrelevant citations. Looking at the history of the page, the overwhelming activity is from SPAs. World Dog Alliance draft was rejected back in [1] I hope another editor can weigh in on this article to create a consensus. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes No Shanghai university passing mention of Peng Hongling as an honorary director ✘ No
No No No Puffy biographical info on WDA (primary source) ✘ No
page from wayback machine. I cannot translate text ? Unknown
No interview with puffy interview ✘ No
page from wayback machine. I cannot translate text ? Unknown
page from wayback machine. I cannot translate text ? Unknown
page from wayback machine. I cannot translate text ? Unknown
Wenhui Daily News culture listing for anti-consumption of dog meat with puffy interview of Peng Hongling ? Unknown
South China Morning Post promo piece in the weekend section ? Unknown
No IMDB No No IMDB ✘ No
No IMDB No No IMDB ✘ No
Animal Protection Association of the Republic of China NGO promotion of World Dog Day ? Unknown
Yes Yes No article covering the passage of "Taiwan: Animal Protection Law Amended' no mention of Peng Hong Ling ✘ No
NewTalk 新頭殼 ~ Peng Hong Ling comment on the passage of "Animal Protection Act" ? Unknown
No No An open letter from the Movement Group to President Tsai "Incorporating Animal Protection into the Constitution" No OpEd ✘ No
Yes Yes Lobbying Firm Profile: Missy Edwards Strategies No passing mention of World Dog Alliance an a donor ✘ No
Yes Yes Lobbying Firm Profile: Prime Policy Group No passing mention of World Dog Alliance an a donor ✘ No
Yes Yes No passing mention of World Dog Alliance an a donor ✘ No
No Animal Friendly Network No churnalish about "The World Dog Alliance (WDA), which is committed to promoting legislation in the United States, is the source of this huge wave" ✘ No
Yes Yes No not mentioned in this legislative listing ✘ No
Yes Yes No not mentioned in this legislative listing ✘ No
No No No petition on World Dog Alliance site (primary) ✘ No
No No No PRESS RELEASE: Paid Content from ACCESS Newswire. The AP news staff was not involved in its creation. ✘ No
No no mention of Genlin ✘ No
No article about dog meat. no mention of Genlin ✘ No
No article about 'Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs: Dogs have been "specialized" as companion animals and should not be included in livestock and poultry management.' no mention of Genlin ✘ No
WORLD ANIMAL NEWS No Victory! Jakarta Bans The Dog & Cat Meat Trade Making It The 21st Jurisdiction In Indonesia To End The Barbaric Industry - no mention of Genlin ✘ No
No No No PRESS RELEASE: Paid Content from ACCESS Newswire. The AP news staff was not involved in its creation. ✘ No
No No Written Evidence submitted by World Dog Alliance (WDA)(AAB0002) No primary source ✘ No
No mention of World Dog Alliance as one of the supporting organizations ✘ No
Yes Yes "Could Chinese millionaire be reason for real estate industry nightmare?". paywalled, but lloks like an article about the purchase of real estate in LA. ? Unknown
No No No article on World Dog Alliance site. (primary) ✘ No
paywalled ? Unknown
No No No press release ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Note that my keep above is not based on sources that are currently in the article and I suggested WP:STUBIFY is appropriate. The source assessment shows no indication that a WP:BEFORE search has been complete. There is substantial coverage of his lawsuit against his former property broker for misrepresenting his house's square footage (including secondary coverage about its effects on the real estate market) [2] with national coverage in ABC [3] and the New York Times [4]. There's also coverage of his attempt to buy a seat in the Japanese Diet [5]. A number of articles used in the Japanese Wikipedia article also appear to be significant coverage [6] [7] [8] [9]. Note that most of the sources I found are only in Japanese (or Chinese used in the Japanese Wikipedia) so it's very likely that if someone who is competent in Chinese were to do a native-language search for sources more would be found, but I think this provides more than enough to meet the minimum for GNG. DCsansei (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DCsansei has !voted twice. Also noting that There is substantial coverage of his lawsuit against his former property broker for misrepresenting his house's square footage does not move this dilettante millionaire anywhere closer to notable --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. The claim of notability in the first paragraph is "named as an Outstanding Alumni" of their university and that is not a good sign as this is not a highly prestigious award that would indicate that they are regarded as an important figure. The sources I have checked as well as the source assessment table above make clear that this is not a notable topic as it has not received significant, sustained coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Asparagusstar (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remains (Steve Lacy album)

[edit]
Remains (Steve Lacy album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM - merge to Steve Lacy (saxophonist)? Orange sticker (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European Operations Management Association

[edit]
European Operations Management Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Flagged for notability since 2020. No references. Can only find passing mentions to the conference it hosts on Google. Orange sticker (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vikramaditya Empire

[edit]
Vikramaditya Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article mixes history and legends and presents it as historical fact. The so-called "Vikramaditya Empire" is not recognised by reliable sources and the topic fails WP:GNG, this article is a blatant historical hoax, violating WP:HOAX. Koshuri (グ) 16:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Asia, and India. Koshuri (グ) 16:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nomination, many of the references here fail to support the claims. A.K. Warder (1992) does not establish any historical empire under Vikramaditya. The Bhavishya Purana (primary source), cited multiple times, is a later text filled with anachronisms and mythological elements, making it unreliable for historical analysis. Hiltebeitel (2009) discusses oral traditions but does not validate an empire which violates WP:V. The Savarkar (Hindustan Times, 2013) reference is a journalistic piece, not a scholarly study, and does not confirm the existence of such an empire. The article misrepresents sources, creating a misleading narrative. The infobox falsely presents a structured empire, despite no archaeological or numismatic evidence supporting such claims. It also merges different historical figures from the Gupta, Paramara, and Chalukya dynasties under a single "Vikramaditya Empire," which is entirely unverified. NXcrypto Message 16:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ilu Ilu

[edit]
Ilu Ilu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are only from TOI, which alone cannot establish notability. Due to WP:NEWSORGINDIA, the sources appear to be promotional press releases and do not contribute to notability. Fails GNG and NFILM. GrabUp - Talk 16:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

White Rock Creek (Republican River tributary)

[edit]
White Rock Creek (Republican River tributary) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a duplicate of White Rock Creek (Kansas) Jbt89 (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy Tab A 10.1

[edit]
Samsung Galaxy Tab A 10.1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same as previous 2, sorry if this isn't proper ettiquete for multi-page XfD-ing. Madeline1805 (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy Tab A 8.0

[edit]
Samsung Galaxy Tab A 8.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same reason as previous XfD Madeline1805 (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 Lite 7.0

[edit]
Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 Lite 7.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Asking for a page delete, as it's already on the List of Samsung tablets Madeline1805 (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samreen Kaur

[edit]
Samreen Kaur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find a strong reason why this subject meets the notability criteria outlined in WP:ENT. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dance of Salome (paintings)

[edit]
Dance of Salome (paintings) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No secondary reliable sources on the page, nothing much else found which would meet the RS JMWt (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural close‎. Wrong venue, should be at WP:RfD. (non-admin closure) ZyphorianNexus Talk 16:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Night In (Press Gang episode)

[edit]
A Night In (Press Gang episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I created this redirect to add to Category:Bottle television episodes. The category was removed so there's no real reason for this article to exist anymore. Fuddle (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Monika Chauhan

[edit]
Monika Chauhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The actress does not have significant coverage in Reliable sources and has not appeared in any notable films, hence fails WP:NACTOR. Taabii (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Josh

[edit]
Harry Josh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, while the creator made a list of the Filmography, but have not cited the WP:RS to support it. I searched about the subject on google but got nothing that can establish notability. Taabii (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Blocker

[edit]
Bill Blocker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability; Cant see anything either in the article or online to suggest he passes WP:GNG TheLongTone (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bobtown, Indiana

[edit]
Bobtown, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This book's explanation of the name's origin for a place in Clay County strikes me as a bit of a "just so" story, but it's about all I get besides Baker. I'm just not finding a trace of the place searching and there's nothing there which suggests it was really a town. @Uncle G:? Mangoe (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The interesting thing is reading Baker, p. 71. Baker tells us that xe can only guess at what this is because it doesn't appear any maps that xe has consulted. It's like reading a deletion nomination rationale straight out of the source. ☺

    Wanting to be thorough, although one could just leave it at that, I did some looking. There's a biography of John Mellencamp (ISBN 9780857128430) that says that this was the original working title of The Lonesome Jubilee because Mellencanp's grandparents "once lived there".

    Other than that, though, I have turned up nothing. There are some soil surveys that name a soil type after this, but they aren't documenting the (supposed) town. The gazetteers only turn up the place in Massachusetts. I couldn't even construct more than a vague opening sentence of an article, with zero hope for expansion or clarification, because even the biography only narrows it down to Jackson County, and is only indirectly reporting the existence of the place based upon Mellencanp's recollection of how xe named a music album. For a place, I'd prefer a geographer to a biographer.

    Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pisit Pitukcheewanont

[edit]
Pisit Pitukcheewanont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article seems mostly to be puffery. It is true that Pitukcheewanont is an adjunct professor of paediatrics, but doesn't meet any of the criteria in WP:NPROF (no named chair, for example). The list of highlighted references shows exclusively mid-author list contributions, mostly in large studies, which usually means that their contribution is to provide access to patients or patient data. References are routine listings or not indepednent of the source. Klbrain (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Locations of Shakespeare's plays

[edit]
Locations of Shakespeare's plays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see how this is a noteworthy topic. In the cases where there is no historical basis for a locale, Shakespeare simply set his plays (I believe) in whatever place his source located them; where they are located is a trivial matter. TheLongTone (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • leaning delete As it stands, this comes off as WP:OR in that the idea for instance about the locations of the tragedies seems to be that of the author. OTOH I would not be surprised at scholarly analysis of this subject. Mangoe (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article is very new and extremely undercooked, but the subject is certainly notable (pace Azuredivay, notability depends on what scholars and others have written, not on the text of the Wikipedia article) with plenty of scholarly sources available. Rewriting is certainly needed, with more and better sources, but that's an editing matter, not for AfD. Bohemia is in the Czech Republic not Austria (wherever it may have been politically in the 17th century); Florence isn't in France; Pericles is wrongly linked; and the equation of Cymbeline/Cunobeline's Ancient Britain with "England" is pretty dubious to say the least (England didn't come into being until at least 500 years later). The map is pretty but the data on it are unsourced and seemingly as wobbly as the tables of data. So as I said, the sources definitely need improvement. The Settings of Shakespeare's Plays by Josip Torbarina would be a place to start (at least it distinguishes England and Britain). I think it would be best to focus on towns or cities (a column in the tables) with "Country" more of a gloss, as countries have changed many times. Even the parts of London would be well worth distinguishing: Torbarina lists the Tower [of London], Bridewell Palace, Eastcheap, Southwark, Blackfriars, Smithfield, Cannon Street, Blackheath, Dartford "etc.". He has similar lists of towns in the English counties, and quite a few cities in France too. The article's problem is its lack of detail and lack of attention to the published scholarly sources, which are a great deal more informative. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: This article has a few glaring errors, as pointed out by Chiswick Chap. On the other hand, I think it would benefit greatly from the addition of content using the scholarly sources identified by Reywas92. Once it's cleaned up and polished, it will be a great addition to Wikipedia.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon tiger phoenix

[edit]
Dragon tiger phoenix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a hoax --- for one, it is a dish that includes a combination of snake meat, cat meat, and chicken. For another, all sources on both the English and Chinese article lead to a 404 page; possibly bogus links created by generative AI. YAQUBROLI T | C 13:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyed Mohsen Fatemi

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Sayyed Mohsen Fatemi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A mid-career academic not yet reaching WP:NPROF. Scopus H-factor of 4 is well below what one might expect in the field, suggesting little impact; most of the arguments from the 2016 AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sayyed Mohsen Fatemi) still apply. Klbrain (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Aidarous gate

[edit]
Al-Aidarous gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass WP:GNG, and its coverage is also questionable. Merging it into Abu Bakr al-Aydarus wouldn't be any better if it lacks notability in the first place. In any case, it doesn't need its own standalone article. – Garuda Talk! 12:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I know which GNG criteria does it not pass? This monument the main gate of al-Shihr and I dont see what is not notable about it. And why would it get merged to Abu Bakr al-Aydarus? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Piosenka dla Europy 2008

[edit]
Piosenka dla Europy 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article appears to almost wholly replicate Poland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008; as the "Poland in ESC 2008" article covers all aspects of the country's participating in the event, I propose merging any information not included in "PdE 2008" into "Poland in ESC 2008" and deleting or redirecting the former Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Altaf Tadavi

[edit]
Altaf Tadavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No other reason of notability except winning a season of Big Boss, a notable reality show. The subject fails WP:ENT and WP:MUSICBIO. Also see MC Stan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MC Stan, this and this Taabii (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nagadai

[edit]
Nagadai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In this disambiguation page, none of the articles listed have titles related to "Nagadai". It is unclear why this page was created. ZyphorianNexus Talk 10:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If a disambiguation page has nothing to do with the articles it contains, it need not exist. Eelipe (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at open AfDs, I am also nominating the following related pages because they follows the same format:

Fukudai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), originally nominated by me
Hirodai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), originally nominated by me
Kyukodai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), originally nominated by Miminity

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Shidai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shindai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aidai (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hokudai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Meidai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Based on my understanding, "dai" is the Japanese equivalent of saying "uni" instead of university, so these disambiguation pages are basically for "Naga uni". Given the double step from shortening to "Naga Uni" to the Japanese usage of "Nagadai", I do not think this is an appropriate disambiguation page for the English Wikipedia, but I'm happy to be corrected. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not appropriate for English Wikipedia, I agree with Significa liberdade, Thanks for the ping. I reviewed it because it was just a disambiguation. I will keep this in my mind for future. Taabii (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 九工大　(valid abbreviation in kanji [34]) is read as　ききゅうこうだい / kyuukoudai not "kyukodai" so that's horribly mistitled. Delete as an obvious error. Sorry, closer, that's the last clear vote you're getting from me.
    広大/ひろだい/hirodai is used to refer to Hiroshima University and Hirosaki[35][36][37][38][39][40][41] in several English academic journals, websites, and books but the primary topic is doubtlessly the monotypic genus of parasites named for Hiroshima University.[42][43]. Given the fact that this one actually is apparently used in English, keep? But the genus is the primary topic, undoubtedly, so keep and retitle to encourage creation? Or maybe delete, then when the next UPE gaming AP makes the genus page, add a hatnote? Or temporarily redirect to Hiroshima, because my sources seem to indicate that's the primary topic of the two(at least in English, probably in Japanese too) and add a hatnote to it instead? and then replace
    Fukudai is actually a dab page at jaWiki under a kanji ja:福大, and two of the universities seems to actually use it in their English-language publishing [44][45] but also it has made its way over to English language publications as a fairly common species name, [46][47][48][49][50][51] presumably after one of the universities? (Anybody feel like finding some 1960s and 1970s Japanese entomology journals and finding out?) Also, it's mentioned (unsourced) at University of Fukui and Fukushima University. If a redirect was made from Fukudai to either of those, it would end up at RfD and the result would likely be disambiguate. So it's not unreasonable that somebody will be searching for the word "fukudai" in English, but at the same time, we can't list any of the species names.. but to make it even more complicated, I actually know the word Fukudai as a series of maths problems and methods for calculating determinants[52] pg 136, so it would probably be a valid redirect if we had an article on that method, which we should because it appears to pass the GNG in modern English-language sources, never mind earlier ones, but also it appears to be much more a partial match and therefore I give up and I regret doing a BEFORE because I am loosing my mind trying, and unfortunately succeeding in finding ways these might be useful. I'm probably going to end up with Oblivy on these. Also, RfDing any of these (except for the mistake and Nagadai bc I can't find that used in English in this context, and, believe me, I've looked) would doubtless result in a result to disambiguate.
    To the closer: I am sorry. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any evidence at all that these strings are related to short forms of university names. Is it not vastly more likely for example that "Hirodai" is pseudo-Latin for a person called Hiroda? And fukudai (副題) is an ordinary word meaning "subtopic". Imaginatorium (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, we're not a Japanese dictionary, so whether or not these are oridinary Japanese words or commonly used in Japanese isn't actually going to be a deciding factor. I'm looking for evidence that these words are used in English to refer to other the universities, or other topics. I've found that evidence for Fukudai, Hirodai, and Hokudai. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after finding this on googling "Fukudai" and this at "Aidai". Both seem enough to justify a redirect, and if there are multiple potential redirects from the same term then we need a dab page. I haven't checked all the others, but having found two out of two suggests that these are probably all valid dab pages. PamD 09:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Hirodai here and here: both being used on English-language sites of the university itself. These aren't "non-notable nicknames" but are short forms used by the respective universities. These dab pages should be kept. PamD 09:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not appropriate or needed for English-language Wikipedia. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in most cases. I wouldn't agree that these are unlikely search terms in English. These abbreviations for universities show up fairly regularly in English translations of Japanese fiction - there are an awful lot of manga, anime and light novel stories set in high schools, so it's common for characters to talk about or visit universities. I'd go with Delete if there's no evidence that the abbreviation is correct (e.g. I'm not sure about one of the targets for Kyukodai as above), but otherwise it seems reasonable to have them as redirects or disambigs. Adam Sampson (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The question (obviously) is: what are these redirects for? How will they be used? And a valid answer would be that in some cases a reader has come across the contracted name of a Japanese university and wants to know about it. That is the plus; what is the minus? Well, when the reader comes across, perhaps "Tōdai", it is a romanisation of 東大, the short form of 東京大学. But a real dictionary (大辞林) lists five words with the reading 'tōdai', the first and most obvious being lighthouse (灯台), and including 東大 as the last. And of course, this is likely to get mangled as todai, some sort of mediaeval tax on paddyfields. So it gives a totally wrong impression that anything in Japanese that ended up as the string "todai" (more or less) refers to a university. See my comment above on the supposed insect names etc above. It also seems odd to start talking about reading fiction: if a novel translated from Polish talks about a "Reading University", how likely is it that this is actually distinguished from a "Writing University". Fundamentally Japanese has so many homophones that this sort of redirect is not reliable. The short forms are used very commonly, but only in appropriate context. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    supposed insect names I take issue with "supposed" here, as it implies I made them up. I found scientific papers about these insects under those names. They have been used. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course the insect names are correct, but they fairly obviously have nothing to do with the contractions used for university names. What is your evidence of "Fukudai" being used in English to refer to the university? Imaginatorium (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, did you get access to the old Japanese entomology journals then? I'm assuming the insects were most likely named after people called Fukudai (Like V. fukudai is) or after one of the universities. But, if you found the answer to then I suppose we'd better move on to that evidence you requested. Here you go! [53][54][55] GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its the equivalent of an acronym in English - it’s basically… ok, so imagine that there were several universities which all used the acronym UCLA. UCLA is not the actual name of any of them, it’s the acronym, but anyone searching for one of them using the acronym is going to be confused by the fact there are several all using the same acronym. It’s that. Anyone searching for Nagadai hoping to get information about Nagaoka University is going to be confused if they get information about Nagano University, or in fact Nagasaki University, which is the other university I definitely know uses Nagadai as a completely normal acronym (I went to the uni down the road, but did stuff there). Absurdum4242 (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on this I have some follow-up comments. "U of W" is an English abbreviation, which makes it appropriate for the English Wikipedia. Thus, I think the question is whether Japanese-language abbreviations are appropriate. To determine that, I think it's worth seeing if a) these abbreviations are used in English materials and b) if we have other disambiguation pages for non-English shortenings. Another consideration is that we often keep non-English redirects if they relate to the target page, which would be the case here. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Caravanserais of Iran

[edit]
List of Caravanserais of Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely unsourced, fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, previously draftified but the author decided to move back to mainspace so nominating here instead. CoconutOctopus talk 09:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The topic in question is a valid one, but the list cannot remain as is, per the nominator's explanation. Some of these can be sourced by using the list of inclusions at the UNESCO World Heritage Site ([56]), which brings my attention to the already existing list at The Persian Caravanserai. Given that the latter article is essentially a list article of its own and is otherwise very awkward in name and scope, the ideal scenario in my view would be to merge these two together (preferably with a clearer title like List of caravanserais in Iran) and use the sourced UNESCO list as a starting point for a proper list article. R Prazeres (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heptalogy

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Heptalogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While trilogy is notable, subsequent (longer) concepts are very rarely discussed in depth in literary dictionaries, encyclopedias or other academic woks. This is a "4th" nom but as far as I can tell the previous noms were mass noms including, among other, better known tetralogy. Let's start from the most obscure end of this spectrum. My BEFORE as well as the quotations used for refs here do not show that 'heptalogy' has WP:SIGCOV anywhere, this is just a rarely used dict-def term) that can be redirected to Series fiction (which I am writing now) per WP:ATD-R. The article is just a dict def plus a list of notable heptalogies. Frankly, as I have recently begun incrasingly reviewing and writing about literature, I very much doubt we need more than the article on trilogy, as from the perspective of literature studies, there is no significance difference between the number of installments in a series outside 'short' and 'long'. For now, however, let's cut some dict-cruft. And if anyone wants to keep this - pleas show us how this meets SIGCOV. PS. Perhaps the list could be split into the list of heptalogies, if WP:LISTN can be shown to be met... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Lists. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I take it you're bringing this here because of prior AfDs, rather than BLAR'ing it when your new article is ready? Jclemens (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Also called septology, cf. Jon Fosse. Geschichte (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I have to say that the division of serial novels according to the number of volumes really makes no sense except as part of a general discussion of the class. Maybe. It's particularly obvious when you have something like the Earthsea books where for a long time there were three, then a fourth, and I lost track at how much further Leguin went after that. Does anyone refer to the series as an N-olgy where N is greater than three? And does anyone care what N equals? I'm just not seeing this as a meaningful class. Mangoe (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Nice work on the Series fiction article! Obviously the exact number of works is not a defining characteristic that connects a series to others with multiple volumes. A curated list may be good for the main article, but not sorted by number of works. Reywas92Talk 14:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: obviously a notable topic and a useful entry (See the three precedent AfDs, please; lists of notable works that are considered so include https://www.babelio.com/liste/6017/Les-plus-belles-heptalogies (in French)). -Mushy Yank. 16:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:LASTTIME. Congrats on managing to get three separate arguments to avoid combined into a single short sentence or two. Nor does your WP:UGC link confer even a whiff of notability to the topic, which if it were so obviously notable, wouldn't require resorting to a French source in the first place. Moreover, if you had actually looked at those previous nominations that you brought up, you'd see they were split between delete, keep, and no consensus. And the keep was part of a bundle so is harder to judge on its own. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (an edit-conflict with the above response), no, I disagree. Several of the sources currently used in Heptalogy discuss specifically the seven-ness of these series, stating that there is special significance to the author's choice of seven. The C.S.Lewis references are the obvious ones. These are rock-solid evidence that the concept is wikinotable. The same applies to trilogies, with even more force. The problem here is that our articles on both trilogies and heptalogies are rather poor, lazily producing lists rather than discussing the underlying concept as covered by literary scholars. But AfD is not for clean-up, and the lists aren't awful enough to merit TNT. Merging is a possibility, but I think it might unbalance the Series fiction article; trilogies, for instance, merit an absolutely enormous discussion because three has been seen as super-significant by many authors. There's also a strong need to distinguish, in series-fiction, between those series that are 3/4/5/6/7 by accident, with no underlying significance beyond the author's getting bored and moving on, and those where there is real meaning in the number. I think it's safer to cover this by having articles on the significance of a trilogy/heptalogy etc. rather than repeatedly trying to work out which series are "true" trilogies/heptalogies in the series fiction article. Elemimele (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elemimele I am happy to be proven wrong, but could you expand the article with a few sentences based on the sources that "discuss specifically the seven-ness of these series"? That would help make it more than a list. That said, I expect most n-volume long series, including heptalogies, are that long simply because that's when the author run out of steam, without particular planning to reach that particular target number. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest I don't feel strongly enough about it to buy the book on C S Lewis, which is obviously one of the major sources, and I don't propose to start writing articles without access to the sources. But the source does exist, which makes deletion awkward. We shouldn't delete just because we can't be bothered to read. Elemimele (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elemimele Without reading, we cannot be sure the sources exist or discuss the topic in a way that meets WP:SIGCOV (i.e. are not mentions in passing). As for the book, have you checked Z-library/Anna's Archive? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not checked Anna's archive because in my country it is illegal to do so. I do not think we should assume that a source we haven't read is inadequate. To be fair, it's actually the job of the proposer to demonstrate that the sources are inadequate. Elemimele (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find anything that even the concept of a heptalogy is notable, let alone something that justifies creating a list of them -- a list with a criterion which can be difficult to settle without performing OR due to questions of whether books belong in the same series or not by being set in the same universe (Neal Stephenson's come to mind here). Nor have any convincing arguments been put forward. Frankly, I'm highly dubious that anything past trilogy really deserves an article, but we'll leave that for another day I guess. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the newly created series fiction article. I think this information should be somewhere, so I would not have voted delete at the last AfD, but I think it fits well here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve. A heptalogy is not just a series of seven fiction books: a quick look on Google Scholar shows that it also refers to dialogues by Plato [57] and operas by Stockhausen [58] (which he planned for performance on each evening of a week, so the seven-ness was definitely significant). So redirecting to an article about series fiction would be inappropriate. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zinda Park

[edit]
Zinda Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails to meet WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources to establish notability. Its significance revolves around a single protest and lacks substantial information on the park's broader significance. On reading the article I observed some of the article lines read like promotional material, which goes against WP:NOTADVERT. Without comprehensive, independent coverage, the topic does not warrant a standalone article. Nxcrypto Message 05:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Planon

[edit]
Planon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Business does business things. Non-notable. Fails WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Netherlands. UtherSRG (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment! I totally get that not every business belongs on Wikipedia, but I think Planon is notable enough to warrant an entry. Why?
    Market Leader: Last week, Planon was named the #1 company in its field by Verdantix, an independent research firm (for the fourth time, just added that source to the page as well). That kind of recognition shows it’s not just another random company .
    Strategic Role: Planon’s acquisition by Schneider Electric and its partnership with SAP also proves it’s not just another business but a strategic one in the industry.
    The acquisition by SE also got decent media attention (which was not only about Planon but also highlighted its competitors like Spacewell, MRI and AppFolio, showing where it fits in the industry).
    I’ve also shared more background and sources on the Talk page beforehand if you’d like to check those out. Hope this clears things up a bit—happy to discuss further if you have other concerns! Stella2707 (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stella2707: That is not how we consider notability on Wikipedia. Please read WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Stella2707 is the creator of the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (note: I approved this article at AfC): Reference 3 and references 8-10 (in combination) should count for independent coverage, unless I completely misunderstand the quality/reliability of these sources. I agree this is a borderline case, but there is some coverage there beyond "this company announced X today", and the article isn't overly promotional. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This shouldn't have passed AfC, at least in its current state. The sources largely look like press releases and routine coverage, neither of which can be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Both the Gartner and Verdantix analyst reports are based on independent research and are widely considered credible sources. These reports are recognized as two of the most important publications for Integrated Workplace Management Systems (as noted in the IWMS Wikipedia entry). The recognition as a market leader in these reports makes it sufficiently notable and reliable for inclusion on Wikipedia in my opinion. Stella2707 (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - An article for this company exists on Dutch Wikipedia, see https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planon.
Seems to be a lot more information there, might be worth looking if the sources there establish notability. Chew(V • T • E) 03:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I still think this page should be kept, [removed double !vote] and I have also added more sources, including ones mentioned in the more detailed Dutch Wikipedia entry.
I believe that Gartner and Verdantix naming Planon as a market leader are strong, independent indicators of notability. These reports are widely respected in the industry and are even referenced as trusted benchmarks on the IWMS page. If these reports are considered reliable for establishing notability on the IWMS page, I don’t see why they wouldn’t hold the same weight here. Stella2707 (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are not allowed to issue multiple !votes in the same discussion. It is highly disruptive behavior that makes discussions more difficult to follow. With that being said, can you identify two sources that you have added that establish that the company meets WP: NCORP? Please keep in mind that most press releases do not establish notability under WP: ORGTRIV and that the notability guidelines on the Dutch Wikipedia are not the same as the guidelines here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought we'd start a whole new vote here - thanks for deleting.
The sources I added are the ones from Het Financieele Dagblad, Verdantix & De Gelderlander (#13, 8, 5 in the list of references). Stella2707 (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FD is probably routine coverage, because it's sourced to an unnamed "editor". The Verdantix source and De Gelderlander are behind paywalls, so unless you can provide a copy of the articles or quotations that show significant coverage, this doesn't count. Remember that the onus is on you to show significant coverage, not the other way around. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an excerpt of 'De Gelderlander' article (original is in Dutch):
Pierre Guelen expanded his one-man business into a global player and receives a prestigious honor
Pierre Guelen from Wijchen was appointed Officer in the Order of Orange-Nassau on Saturday evening. This royal decoration is awarded for exceptional achievements with an international impact or significant national influence.
Job van der Meer | 26-05-24, 16:12
The company Planon, which Guelen founded as a one-man business in 1982, has grown into an enterprise with fifteen offices worldwide and approximately 1,000 employees. His first project involved writing software for the maintenance plan of Philips' Nijmegen location. Over forty years later, his software for smart and sustainable building management is now being used in 40 countries.
And here from Verdantix:
Green Quadrant: Connected Portfolio Intelligence Platforms (CPIP/IWMS) 2025
By Joy Trinquet With Claire Stephens January 2025
This report provides a detailed, fact-based comparison of the 12 most prominent connected portfolio intelligence platform (CPIP)/integrated workplace management system (IWMS) software providers in the market. Based on the proprietary Verdantix Green Quadrant methodology, our analysis comprised two-and-a-half-hour live product demonstrations with pre-set scenarios, desk research and vendor responses to a 184-point questionnaire covering eight technical, nine functional and eight market momentum categories. We also conducted interviews with 17 software users and reviewed the data from our global survey of 303 corporate real estate and facilities management executives. Verdantix analysis finds that vendors are transitioning from legacy IWMS solutions to CPIP offerings to meet customer demand for greater data integration and analytics. Among the firms analysed in this study, eight providers – Planon, IBM, Eptura, MRI Software, Tango, Johnson Controls, Spacewell-Nemetschek and Nuvolo – demonstrated leading CPIP/IWMS capabilities.
....
In the Green Quadrant analysis, Planon is the highest performer, achieving an aggregate score of 2.2/3.0 on the capabilities axis and a score of 2.4/3.0 on the momentum axis. Planon has remained in the Leaders’ Quadrant since Verdantix first ran the IWMS Green Quadrant report in 2017.
..... Stella2707 (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of those quotations do anything to establish notability. As I stated above, please read WP: ORGTRIV. Routine coverage, such as the receiving of non-notable awards, and trivial mentions do not establish the notability of any subject. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, these sources aren’t “trivial coverage,” and I also don’t think the award is non-notable — if it was, it probably wouldn’t have its own Wikipedia page, right?
I’d also argue that these articles fall under the category of WP:SUBSTANTIAL. They are independent pieces that discuss partnerships and acquisitions, highlighting their impact on the industry while also referencing competitors:
Haven't added those sources yet:
When setting up the page, I also looked at similar pages like TopDesk, Nemetschek and MRI Software. It would be really helpful to know which of the sources on those pages are considered notable so I can try to find comparable ones for the Planon entry. Stella2707 (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong on every count. As I very clearly stated above, Dutch Wikipedia and English Wikipedia have different notability standards. The existence of an article also doesn't imply that its subject is notable. Plenty of articles are created about non-notable topics, such as the one we're discussing right now. It is also clear that you are either unable or unwilling to read the policies that I have cited because WP: NCORP clearly states that "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as ... the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel [and] of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business." do not establish notability. Do not insert any more sources into this discussion until you have read these policies. You are wasting valuable volunteer time by ignoring them. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I have read the policies and still none of my sources fall under hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel, nor are they standard notices, brief announcements, or routine coverage of expansions, acquisitions, or mergers. Instead, they analyze and discuss the acquisition and its industry impact - but anyways:
My goal is not to waste anyone’s time — I want to improve the entry. That’s why I’d really appreciate feedback on my earlier question: which sources on similar (English!) pages are considered notable? That way, I can focus on finding comparable ones. I’m not here to argue, just to learn and contribute constructively.
I’ll leave it here for now but would appreciate any feedback from you or others. Stella2707 (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Planon is very widely used, we have no reason to doubt the accuracy of our article, which is conveying quite simple and non-promotional information. The sourcing is about as good as you'd expect for this class of company. But from the perspective of common sense, it's quite likely that a reader who has come across planon at work might be curious as to its origins, and it's the fundamental job of an encyclopedic site such as our own to help them find out more. What conceivable benefit is there in deciding not to tell them? Elemimele (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B. K. Goenka

[edit]
B. K. Goenka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A promotional biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Just a detailed resume WP:NORESUMES. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was an AfD discussion in the past Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balkrishan Goenka, which should be considered for this discussion. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Source 5 is a RS, briefly mentioning him in relation to the company. 8 is about his housing, 11 is about a lunch conversation with him, 15 is him giving his opinions... Some coverage about the Welspun company. I don't see notability for this individual with the sourcing used, nor can I find much else. The rest of the sourcing aren't in RS or don't help notability. Still not seeing enough to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2025 (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, Owen× ☎ 07:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hindu empires and dynasties

[edit]
List of Hindu empires and dynasties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article contains significant inaccuracies. The term "Hinduism" is not applicable to the time periods of ancient era, as only Brahmanism was present. The article incorrectly categorizes several non-Hindu dynasties as Hindu, spreading misinformation and distorting historical facts. This misrepresentation goes against the core WP:NPOV and WP:V. The article fails to cite WP:RS, and promoting various hoax in terms of factual accuracy in listing. Mr.Hanes Talk 14:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, low quality is not the same as lack of notability. In this case, there is no doubt that there have been many dynasties in India (however that region is construed). Citations definitely can be found; most of the entries are clearly correct; the rest can certainly be remedied by normal editing, which is not an AfD matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to List of Indian empires and dynasties as the most states on the list were actually Indian or situated in Indian subcontinent. In this sense renaming would be appropriate. Mehedi Abedin 23:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not everything in that list is in Indian subcontinent. Some are from southeast asia, such as Majapahit and Srivijaya. They are among the two biggest Hindu empire outside India. The only reason that it looks insignificant because the list is very poorly written, making them easy to miss. - Ivan530 (Talk) 19:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We have many other lists, like List of princely states of British India (by region), separately List of princely states of British India (alphabetical), List of Rajput dynasties and states, List of dynasties and rulers of Rajasthan. To avoid even more duplication, I think that continuing the current scope (sticking to the Hindu kingships would be wise). Викидим (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree, the Hinduism is of later origin, whereas in place of modern Hinduism, Brahmanism was present in ancient India. The article inaccurately cites several non-Hindu dynasties as Hindu, which is historically incorrect and misleading. Nxcrypto Message 05:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along the lines of WP:TNT due to WP:OR. I have spent a significant amount of time trying to figure out the origins of dates and locations in this list, and can testify that the format of a list is uniquely unsuitable for looking at really deep layers of Indian history. Essentially (please note that I am not an expert and not even an amateur in this area, so please take this with a grain of salt), there is no written history that pre-dates the 1st millennium AD, and no chronicles for a long time even after that, the first definite royal dates apparently are from the times of Guptas. While this is generally not a problem for a researcher, putting a verifiable date of an early Indian history into a table is usually not possible. Note the cite requests I added to all the dates of the 2nd millennium BC, predictably, no sources were added. As a practical example, let's take the first entry in the list (it actually became the first after I have removed the earlier mythical empires with completely random dates to the bottom of the list), Kuru kingdom. This list states 1900BC (note the exactness), our own article says 1200 BC. The issue in reality is so much harder than our articles portrays, there are tons of texts written trying to date this (non-mythical!) kingdom. Quoting our Kuru kingdom: The main contemporary sources for understanding the Kuru kingdom are the Vedas. But ... practically all historians agree that Vedas were written down in the 1 millennium AD and thus cannot be "contemporary" if 1200 BC date is to be believed, and also contain very little in terms of dates in general, and definitely nothing so precise for the Kuru Kingdom. As an example of a professional's assessment of Kuru, one might want to look at Michael Witzel's work, The Realm of the Kuru: Origins and Development of the First State in India. He plainly states: our approach has primarily to be a textual one; there remains little else that can tell us something about this period ... yet after some 150 years of study, the Vedic period as a whole does not seem to have a history. He continues: the first fixed date in Indian history that is usually mentioned is that of the Buddha around 500 BCE. In an earlier work Early Sanskritization. Origins and development of the Kuru state Witzel states, The evolvement of the small tribal Bharata domination into that of a much larger Kuru realm is not recorded by our texts. The Kurus suddenly appear on the scene in the post-Rigvedic texts. Once again, there is nothing wrong with this material, but it cannot be neatly packed into a table. Therefore, the only way for us to write this list is to find a modern chronological source and base the list on it. Attempts to haphazardly create our own list based on disjoint sources will miserably fail as the purest WP:OR. Until such a source is found and agreed upon, this list will only sow confusion among our readers. Once the source is found, the list will have to be written from scratch anyhow. Personally, I would propose to start with [59] (please read the one-paragraph introduction!). --Викидим (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looking at the article, though not well written, i will go for keeping it. There is always scope for improvement in this area. Rahmatula786 (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is this a topic that is covered in this particular way by WP:Reliable sources? We can't really keep this if it isn't. TompaDompa (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, that so-called topic Hindu empires and dynasties in this specific form is not covered by reliable sources. Most scholarly works discuss these kingdoms in terms of regional history, political evolution, or religious influences, but not as a consolidated list with a clear focus on "Hindu" identity. This leads to a reliance on synthesis and original research, violating WP:V and WP:NOR. The article perpetuates inaccuracies by including non-Hindu dynasties and presenting speculative timelines, which distorts history. Mr.Hanes Talk 04:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    IN my search for sources, I have discovered few Hindu kingdom lists, but they were much shorter and quite focused on some aspect of the total set. Викидим (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What's the definition for "Hindu empire / dynasties" here? Because from the list's lead and Kingship (Hinduism) I assume that it's Empire / dynasties that adopt Hinduism as it's religion. But from the way it's mentioned in this discussion multiple times, it might means something else. Am I missing something? - Ivan530 (Talk) 06:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Prior to my modifications of the lead, it read The following list enumerates Hindu empires and dynasties in chronological order. Pinging @Fidolex: who wrote it back in 2018. My interpretation was simple: Hindu indicated adherence to Hinduism, not some particular geography of era, so I have added a link to the (newly created) Kingship (Hinduism) in 2024. Researchers routinely use terms like "Hindu kingdoms/dynasties" to denote the monarchies that were based on Hinduism principles, similar to other state religions, so this interpretation is not my WP:OR. See, for example, [60]. Викидим (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be the best way to decide this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Sourced, well-structured and illustrated. A helpful timeline. Might be renamed List of Hindu monarchies (and the LS indicating "including empires/dynasties" etc) (or List of Hindu kingships). Improve and clean up by adding refs to Spellman, W. M. (2004). Monarchies 1000-2000. Reaktion Books., pp. 129-130, Lal, D. (2005). The Hindu Equilibrium: India C.1500 B.C. - 2000 A.D.. Oxford UP, passim and a lot of other references that together prove the topic was evidently addressed as a set in reliable sources, thus meeting WP:NLIST. -Mushy Yank. 18:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reading the cited sources, as well as the those floated during this discussion, I would say that 99% of the content here is unsupported by them. Studying a few random entries: Kushan Empire, Licchavis of Nepal, and Pala Empire, I can't agree with the claim that "most of the entries are clearly correct" or the idea that complex information about 150+ empires and dynasties can be shoehorned into a verifiable table. List of Indian monarchs needs a six-column table just to lay out different views on the start and end dates of the Pala Empire! Some of the kings of the Kushan Empire and Pala Empire were Hindu, other were Buddhist or Zoroastrian, a nuance lost by trying to squeeze messy history into a pretty table. --Worldbruce (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reiterating the call for a source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CR (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear colleague: There are almost no sources listed for the items on this list. The three serious sources at the end have been added by me to justify the removal of mythical dynasties into their own table at the bottom (prior to that surgery these kingdoms were also in the main table with completely fictional dates and details, and the only two sources covered two tiny aspects, see the Old revision of List of Hindu empires and dynasties). My three sources thus do not support the information in the list itself and I am practically sure that most of the dates at the top of the table are also fictional (the ones I have marked with {{cn}} contradict our own articles about the kingdoms, not the sources - that are mostly absent in these articles, too). I do not understand what can be done to verify, for example, the 1900BC claims for the Hindu kingdom at the top of the list, as mainstream historians apparently declare that Aryan people (proto-Indians) had settled in what is now India many centuries later. For the avoidance of doubt, I am no expert on the subject. Викидим (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Albanese

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Tina Albanese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. BLP with no effective sourcing. Single reference is a cast list passing mention. scope_creepTalk 08:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination (don't know if I'm allowed to contribute to this as the previous nominator, if not just ignore) Aŭstriano (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are. I posted this again, because the last Afd was evidence free that resulted in a non-consensus result on a single passing mention, on a BLP. scope_creepTalk 11:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is it really allowable to bring an article to AfD again one day after it closed? I will repeat what I said there: I believe that she meets WP:CREATIVE#3: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Apart from her other work, she co-wrote and co-executive produced 3 seasons of See Dad Run, and that has been the primary subject of multiple independent reviews. Some of the references from the See Dad Run article could be added here - I will do so. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen: What you believe is neither here nor there. You made that same evidence free policy absent statement the last time. Do you any you references that can support this WP:BLP per WP:THREE, because I have done a before and found only cast list which passing mentions. Simply stating something without offering evidence is unacceptable in 2025. Its not 2008. Per WP:BLP, its needs high-quality WP:SECONDARY coverage, not passing mentions. It must satisfy WP:V, WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. If you do not evidence then it will be redirected. scope_creepTalk 13:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I referred to policy both in this AfD and the previous one. I read WP:CREATIVE#3 as stating that someone who has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work is notable. It is the work that must have multiple independent reviews. If you don't think that See Dad Run meets those criteria, perhaps you should take it to AfD. The result of this AfD does not depend on me, nor on you - it will depend on what the consensus of participating editors is. I have added sources to this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Mushy Yank, Reading Beans, Mlkj, and Moopaz:, who participated in the AfD that finished one day ago.RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you believe is neither here nor there. You made that same evidence free policy absent statement the last time is a very unnecessarily hostile and inaccurate comment: Rebecca did refer to a guideline during the first AfD. Also, please bear in mind that people meeting WP:CREATIVE do NOT need to also meet WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Sources have been added to address the verification issues. Anyone could have added them, including the nominator.-Mushy Yank. 13:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the WP:THREE references per consensus. Provide 3 good secondary references and I will withdraw the nomination. But it needs to satisfy WP:BIO and WP:V. scope_creepTalk 16:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: immediate renomination was not due. Either discuss a redirect on the talk page or go to deletion review. -Mushy Yank. 13:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Although I voted delete on the last AfD, I'm not thrilled to see this re-submitted on the very next day. The norm is WP:2MONTHS before re-listing when there is no consensus.
On another note, thank you RebeccaGreen for the ping! To respond to your comment above, if I were !voting, I'd argue that although WP:CREATIVE#3 is an additional criteria that indicates notability, it doesn't override the more important WP:BASIC policy for notability (significant coverage in multiple published secondary, reliable, independent sources). Even if we find a criteria somewhere that supports notability, we cannot write a WP:BLP without good sources to cite, otherwise we risk having verifiability & original research problems. And that's a much stronger concern! If WP:CREATIVE#3 conflicts with WP:V due to lack of reliable sources, this is a foundational issue with the five pillars, the need for reliable sources must always take precedence over the various particular criteria that each topic uses to discuss notability! Mlkj (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Thanks for that!! Evidence free !voting is deeply uncool that leaves non-notable articles that have no place on Wikipedia. If there is sources for this BLP, they would be immediately visible on the reliable sources search as its a modern individual. No deep archive search is needed. There is nothing here and it needs to go or be redirected. And stating "Speedy Keep" as though its a heavily sourced historical article, when there is really hardly any information on the lady at all, except cast lists, is not helpful. Lastly WP:2MONTHS is an essay not policy. Its rank junk and meaningless. I would advise you not to mention again. The article has never been referenced since it was created. The article needs to stand on its own two feet as its a WP:BLP. scope_creepTalk 16:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Jirui

[edit]
Chen Jirui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nopnnotable "Chinese research scientist, medical doctor, and teacher" --Altenmann >talk 08:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. He was an editor in chief of the International Journal of Clinical Acupuncture, but I'm not convinced that it's a "major well-established academic journal" for the purposes of WP:NPROF#C8. I don't think membership of the China Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine (more commonly translated in English as the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences I think) could qualify for WP:NPROF#C3, but I can't find any clear indication of whether its membership is highly selective or not. I also couldn't find evidence of major awards and his highest academic post seems to have been as a professor. His book got some reviews and was translated into three languages, but given that it came out in the 1980s I'm having trouble tracking down the original reviews to check how significant they are. I'm also not sure that the editor of a book of medical case reports would play enough of a "significant role" to qualify per WP:NAUTHOR. So based on that I lean delete unless anyone is able to find significant offline sources. MCE89 (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and China. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nawpara High School (H.S.)

[edit]
Nawpara High School (H.S.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL as no multiple sources found with significant coverage. Maybe a redirect to West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education is a good option per ATD. GrabUp - Talk 08:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that the abbreviation in the title is completely redundant, I would also support a redirect to West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education. Procyon117 (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Premer Somadhi

[edit]
Premer Somadhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are unreliable, and the reviews added to the reception section are the same reviews published twice by both websites, failing NFILM. Additionally, I doubt their reliability. The source BMDB is entirely unreliable as it is a blog website. GrabUp - Talk 08:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia–Malta relations

[edit]
Georgia–Malta relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A redirect that was unredirected. There seems to be no third party coverage of these relations to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Libera Folio

[edit]
Libera Folio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:Fancruft. The article only cites one source, which is in Esperanto. It does not seem like this online magazine has ever been covered by anyone outside of the Esperanto movement. Aŭstriano (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Layer One X

[edit]
Layer One X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Plenty of crypto blogs but no significant coverage in reliable sources. CNMall41 (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adigun Ibrahim Olalekan

[edit]
Adigun Ibrahim Olalekan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are unreliable and do not provide significant coverage of the subject, failing GNG. Being the chairman of a student union does not inherently make a person notable, failing NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 08:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @GrabUp for checking the article, actually he is a chairman of a local government in Lagos and he been selected as speaker and deputy speaker of a union at is undergraduate level could be removed if that doesn't have a credible citation, I pardon my insufficiency to provide Good and credible citation around the article, if you could help me out on what can be removed for thr article to be removed from deletion, I do be glad.
Thank you so much as i awaits a positive response from you soonest. Favourdare123 (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Favourdare123: This person does not meets the Wikipedia’s notability criteria. So the article can’t be kept. GrabUp - Talk 08:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, I can't find any reliable source about this subject.

Ok1616 09:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Space Solar Power Exploratory Research and Technology program

[edit]
Space Solar Power Exploratory Research and Technology program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article lacks inline cites and the topic is already covered in Space-based_solar_power#Exploratory_Research_and_Technology_program No objection to merging if you think the refs at the end of this article are sufficient. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for merge as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tajhat Thana

[edit]
Tajhat Thana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find sources that show that this meets WP:GNG. Previous similar AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hajirhat Thana. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Mahiganj Thana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kotwali Thana (Rangpur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Joydebpur Thana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bhashantek Thana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Soprano clarinet

[edit]
Soprano clarinet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely duplicative of clarinet article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I? Look at trombone, where the same real-world pattern obtains: the tenor trombone is overwhelmingly what people mean when they use the word, and lo and behold, it redirects into the main article. That's the same situation here: the B flat clarinet (and its slightly differently-pitched siblings) are what people mean when they talk of a clarinet. Mangoe (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source eval for the newly found ones?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll start you off, Benison. The "C Clarinet" chapter in Lawson et al. 1995 is 5 pages long, is detailed about use of the C clarinet by several notable composers, and is even cited by other books such (for example) as Albert R. Rice's Notes for Clarinetists: A Guide to the Repertoire which rests upon Lawson for its discussion of the duos for C clarinet and bass in Jean-Xavier Lefèvres Méthode de Clarinette. Rendall 1971 is a more diffuse source, but across its pages it ranges from Arne's Artaxerxes to comparisons of the soprano clarinet with the basset-horn. There is definite scope for expansion on the specific subject from these sources, given the state of the article at hand. I barely skimmed Baines 1991 as the first two are strong indications that sourcing is available and expansion is possible; a quick look at its index indicates that it too covers the C clarinet in several places throughout the book. And since I mention Rice, past president of the American Musical Instrument Society, clarinetist, and OUP-published clear subject expert, there's another book by Rice that seems to have a fair bit to say about this subject throughout its length: Rice 2008. Reading the sources, it seems clear that what we have here is a crap article, not a crap scope for a future article. I know at least one fact not in the present article just from reviewing these sources: Mahler and Strauss revived the use of the C clarinet in the 20th century.(Baines 1991, p. 120) Uncle G (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rice, Albert R. (2008). The Clarinet in the Classical Period. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199887781.

Keep. UpTheOctave! has hit the nail on the head: in any family of musical instruments, there are generalities that apply to all, and specifics that apply to individual sizes. If we put the specifics in the main article, it will often be too long, and there's a strong risk that the article will give undue weight to "odd" sizes about which much can be written, but which are rarely actually played. Putting the specifics in a separate article makes the overarching "family" article a lot more manageable, and means editors can expand on the specific sizes of instrument to their readers' hearts' content. It also deals with the fact that it's a bit arbitrary when we give an instrument a totally different name (viola versus violin) and when we use the family name with some qualifier. Elemimele (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaavya Sha

[edit]
Kaavya Sha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From a WP:BEFORE, I am unable to find any independent sources with significant coverage. The only sources I could find with SIGCOV are interviews /wedding announcements, which are ineligible towards GNG. NACTOR is also not met here, as none of these roles are significant enough to warrant a separate article. No plausible ATDR either. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No byline No ~ ✘ No
No Interview ~ Yes ✘ No
No Independent blog ~ ✘ No
No Press release No No ✘ No
~ No Video coverage of her marriage ✘ No
No Press release ~ No ✘ No
Yes Yes No Passing mention - Review ✘ No
~ No Routine coverage ✘ No
~ No Routine coverage ✘ No
No No Passing mention ✘ No
Yes Yes No Passing mention - Review ✘ No
Yes ~ No Passing mention - Review ✘ No
~ Interview ~ Yes ~ Partial
No Interview ~ Yes ✘ No
~ Partial Interview ~ Yes ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Per WP:GNG, even if we consider multiple publications from TOI group as a single source for the purpose of establishing notability, we would still require two more good sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC) Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for redirect as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3/3 (EP)

[edit]
3/3 (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After a quick BEFORE, I do not think this EP meets NALBUM. At present, the article is sourced solely via primary sources, and I haven't been able to find any secondary sources discussing the EP, the artist, or the record label. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kiuoro

[edit]
Kiuoro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After a quick BEFORE, I do not think Kiuoro meets WP:MUSICBIO. At present, all sources in the article are primary, and I haven't been able to find any coverage in non-primary sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LIFE Industries (Record Label)

[edit]
LIFE Industries (Record Label) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After a quick search, I do not think this label meets NCORP. The sources currently provided are primary, and a Google search hasn't been any more promising. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aarti Gupta Surendranath

[edit]
Aarti Gupta Surendranath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are unreliable and PR stuff, fails GNG and NACTOR. GrabUp - Talk 06:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upfluence

[edit]
Upfluence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are not providing SIGCOV coverage. Failing GNG and NCORP. GrabUp - Talk 06:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–Serbia relations

[edit]
Estonia–Serbia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was a redirect that was reverted. I could not find coverage in third party sources covering these relations. They don't even have resident embassies. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhlach family

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Muhlach family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am revisiting this article as part of a failed bundled nomination of Filipino family articles created by User:Carl Francis. Since its creation, it is nothing more than a genealogy of the Muhlach family. In fact, it doesn't even try to explain the family's significance or importance. The "List of members" section contains a family tree that is mostly based on a diagram created by ABS-CBN. I suspect that original research or synthesis might be involved during the tree's creation, although I am not sure. Other than the family tree, there's only a very short lead section and a couple of references. EJPPhilippines (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mardenis, Indiana

[edit]
Mardenis, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another case of ignoring what the reference actually says about the place, it's clear from the history that this was only a shipping point on the railroad, not a town. And yes, the topos show nothing there. Mangoe (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. "small station on the Wabash Railroad called Mardenis" in the source is unambiguous. Although for completeness I should note that Victor Eldon Stech upgraded it to "village" in xyr 1940 The Development of Huntington County. The Huntington County Historical Society's 1993 history book (Turner, ISBN 9781563111211) barely mentions Mardenis, but there are several early 20th century specialist trade sources (The American Elevator and Grain Trade, The Co-operative Manager and Farmer, Grain and Feed Journals Consolidated) that report, for examples, the Mardenis Equity Exchange going bankrupt in 1922 and the grain elevator fire of 1923 that cost US$10,000 (equivalent to $178,828 in 2023). Things going bankrupt and up in smoke a century ago seems like an explanation for there being nothing there today. ☺

    It's a shameful reflection on the editors with accounts to see that an editor without an account who correctly went with this being a railroad station rather than the "unincorporated community" dren, and tried to correctly link it to Andrews, Indiana (albeit by the wrong article title) in agreement with the station order that is (for example) in C. J. Phillips's 1965 The History of Indiana, was reverted by Cards84664 for no good reason at Special:Diff/1006680664.

    Uncle G (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Red T

[edit]
Red T (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search for sources yielded nothing in depth to meet WP:ORG. The 2 sources provided are primary. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. All I could find were interviews, primary sources and passing mentions. I also looked at whether its founder might be notable as a possible move/redirect option, but I don't think there's enough about her to pass WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- (moderate) -- 8 years is more than enough time for an article to be expanded. It's clear from a quick search that this entity does not meet notability standards. The sources there are -- apart from the two primary sources cited currently -- appear to be enetering into Woozle territory, with organizations vouching for one another. Certainly no SIGCOV. MWFwiki (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manop Leeprasansakul

[edit]
Manop Leeprasansakul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod that was redirected. I contested the redirect Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_8#Manop_Leeprasansakul. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2025 (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! 02:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let's just delete without prejudice to redirecting to an appropriate target once that is shown to exist. Maybe a list of sports shooters who represented Thailand internationally could be created. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sartaj Mera Tu Raaj Mera

[edit]
Sartaj Mera Tu Raaj Mera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unless there are non-English sources that can be found, there is nothing I can find that amounts to significant coverage. A redirect to Hum TV would be a good WP:ATD but would not qualify as a standalone page. CNMall41 (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YGL motif

[edit]
YGL motif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probably fails WP:GNG. It's mentioned in a few studies about motifs and the viruses that have it, but only seems to be a major part of one primary source (the one used in the article). When comparing this motif to others, most of the motifs in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Protein_structural_motifs are much broader in scope than the YGL motif and have been the subject of far more research than the YGL motif. Google search returns 15 (filtered) results, 3 of which (20%) are to Wikipedia. Google Scholar just ten results. Velayinosu (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of airlines of Lebanon

[edit]
List of airlines of Lebanon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is a list article with only one entry, specifically Middle East Airlines. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 18:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Macheret

[edit]
Sergey Macheret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As the article's subject, I'd like to request that the article be deleted.

I am a non-notable, private person, and so the article about me does not meet the notability criteria.

Specifically:

1. This BLP article is already designated as low-importance one. Indeed, although I have made contributions to my field, numerous individuals who have made much more significant and impactful contributions do not have their Wikipedia pages. Although I have been elected a Fellow of AIAA, my professional society, overwhelming majority of 800+ AIAA Fellows and also Fellows of other similar societies do not have Wikipedia pages. There are hundreds, if not thousands, people in my field who are much more famous, have much higher citation counts, are Fellows of one or more professional societies and Members of the highly prestigious National Academy of Engineering or National Academy of Inventors (of which I am not a Member), and have no Wikipedia pages. For example: Prof. Richard B. Miles, Texas A&M University (formerly of Princeton U.), Prof. Mark J. Kushner (U. of Michigan), Prof. Graham Candler (U. of Minnesota), Prof. Alexander A. Fridman (Drexel U.), and many, many others. In short, I believe that my notability is too low for a Wikipedia BLP article.

2. My 'notoriety' stems from the single offence described in the current article as Legal Issues. However, all that notoriety is due to initial police-made accusation of dealing drugs, which was immediately interpreted by the media as a real-life case of "Breaking Bad" TV series. When these bogus accusations of drug dealing disappeared (they were never filed in court rather than "dropped") and only a single misdemeanor offence remained, national and international media immediately lost all interest. Only local media, i.e. a student-run newspaper, a small-town newspaper, and a local TV station reported on the developments since then. As it is, the single misdemeanor offence certainly does not meet the Wikipedia notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMacheret (talk • contribs) 19:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and subject's request. "Where the living subject of a biographical article has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." In addition, it says: "Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed." — Maile (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per subject's request. 1000% agree with David Epstein above, though. Qflib (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Because we are a volunteer project, articles get written when people find the time and enthusiasm to write them, and so there are many topics which could have articles but don't. Many notable books are lacking articles; many biographies that should be written haven't been. So, the statement in the deletion request that the overwhelming majority of 800+ AIAA Fellows and also Fellows of other similar societies do not have Wikipedia pages does not itself matter one way or the other. XOR'easter (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd argue for a keep, but expunge the legal issues per WP:DUE (and revdel them). He's known for his work in physics, not legal issues that only made local news at best. If that can't be done, then delete per the request. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The part in the rationale about the overwhelming majority of AIAA Fellows not having an article does have a point beyond WP:WAX that I find convincing: because we are so far from having a complete list, another missing article will not make much of a significant gap in our coverage. Therefore, although I do think he meets our standards for notability, that cannot justify keeping up an attack page, and I think it is borderline enough that we can allow the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to go through. If we ever get to a point where this article is needed to complete the list, or his notability becomes less borderline, we can revisit the case and if necessary create an article without the attack content. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per WP:PROF#C3 and the AIAA Fellow now that the BLPREQUESTDELETE issues appear to be resolved. Google Scholar found some 14 publications with triple-digit citation counts, eight as first author, so I think there is also a good case for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've deleted all the revisions I found that contained a mention of the irrelevant legal issues, and EC-protected the page. Please ping me if I've missed any offending revisions. @SMacheret: is the current version acceptable to you? If so, please let us know that you're withdrawing your objection, and we can then decide the fate of the article based on notability merits. Owen× ☎ 18:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This version still contains the irrelevant legal issues, just as a paragraph in the Biography section rather than as a separate section. If you can work with the latest version that existed before your revision and delete the section Legal Issues in it, that would work for me. Otherwise, I would ask again to just delete the article. SMacheret (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, my apologies, SMacheret. How is the current revision? I prefer not to edit any of the deleted, later revisions, since we might then have an attribution problem. Hopefully this one can be the basis for further improvements. Owen× ☎ 21:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. This can indeed be the basis for further improvements, which would be fine with me. Deleting the entire article would be also fine with me, if such is the decision as a result of this discussion. SMacheret (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. @Maile66, Xxanthippe, Qflib, and David Eppstein: with the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE aspect of the nomination withdrawn, will you be revising your !vote? Owen× ☎ 23:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now that the BLP issues are resolved to the satisfaction of the subject/nomination, relisting this for any added insight on notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1882 in Scandinavian music

[edit]
1882 in Scandinavian music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We have articles for 1882 in Norwegian music (where this article was an unattributed copy from), 1880s in Danish music, 1882 in Finnish music and 1880s in Swedish music. Comparable to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 in Scandinavian music. Fram (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for the same reasons:

1881 in Scandinavian music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fram (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet. And, for Reywas92, what merge target article are you suggesting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tadahiro Aizawa

[edit]
Tadahiro Aizawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insignificant amateur stone tool collector, fails WP:NACADEMIC. Subject is also not referenced in any WP:RSs per my WP:BEFORE. --Eelipe (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 222399

[edit]
HD 222399 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 21 Andromedae. Procyon117 (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 41162

[edit]
HD 41162 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 21 Andromedae. Procyon117 (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 174569

[edit]
HD 174569 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NASTCRIT says that notability is only presumed if at least one of the criteria is met, not granted. It shouldn't be taken as overriding the general notability guideline, and that also applies to some of the other astronomy AfDs currently ongoing. 2804:14C:CCA1:4388:2234:D116:58EC:4E69 (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A general guideline isn't an absolute guideline, in most cases just satisfying the criteria above is enough. 21 Andromedae (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 21 Andromedae. Procyon117 (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JakeFuture27

[edit]
JakeFuture27 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Don't think WP:SIGCOV is met. His follower/view counts are not indicative of someone inherently notable, and the sources used would on the whole not be considered reliable. I T B F 📢 02:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Some coverage out there, but none really that would warrant a separate article for now. Maybe in a few months, he'll be notable enough. Procyon117 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Chico

[edit]
Peter Chico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As a city councilman, fails WP:NPOL. The sourcing does not demonstrate WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: POLOUTCOMES is not a community endorsed guideline or policy. It is instead a recording of what has happened. But when challenged an article should be shown to be notable and not by relying on the OUTCOMES page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Mostly this is an argument that WP:POLOUTCOMES is, like many such notability tests, largely bad where it is invoked. There is no explicit claim of notability, and Mr. Chico is not claimed to have done anything that anyone outside of the city limits might care about; I have to suspect that even in Chicago he is a relatively anonymous figure to those who don't have to deal with him on a work basis. There are a very few cases where city councilmembers have come to notoriety, but considering for example Marion Barry, most of his infamy came about while he was mayor, and his second go-'round on the council was largely notable simply because he was elected at all after the drug bust. There is no claim that this person even vaguely approaches that. Mangoe (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the article sees improvement, delete if it doesn't. While it's true that Chicago is a large, internationally prominent city whose city councillors would commonly be accepted as passing WP:NPOL #2, that still requires the article to contain substantive content about his political impact (specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his work had on the city, and on and so forth), supported by WP:GNG-worthy coverage about it in reliable sources.
    We would almost certainly keep an article about a Chicago city councillor that had substantive content about his political career in it and was well-sourced — but even in the global megacity tier, we still do not keep articles about city councillors that basically amount to "he exists, the end" and are supported entirely by primary sources and run of the mill candidate questionnaires of the type that even the non-winning candidates who lost the election would still be able to show.
    I don't know enough about Chicago politics to know whether the necessary depth of improvement is possible here or not, but it would require significantly more substance and sourcing than this to become keepable. POLOUTCOMES means that substantive articles about big-city councillors are permissible, not that just writing and sourcing the bare minimum necessary to verify that the person exists would be enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability isn't conditional and I simply don't see a notability pass here, just local coverage of a local politician. SportingFlyer T·C 01:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if this is deleted, Chico will be the only councilor out of 50 to not have an article. R. G. Checkers talk 02:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This suggests there are either good sources about him that exist haven't been found yet, or that there are other councillors who need to be sent to AfD as well. SportingFlyer T·C 02:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What it implies is a major upending of community precedent is occurring in this discussion, and now many Chicago city councilor articles that editors have put thousands of hours into are up for deletion. R. G. Checkers talk 05:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not really - this article doesn't pass WP:GNG on its face which raises WP:BLP concerns, and I can't find anything which easily saves it. I'd expect most Chicago councillors might be notable, especially ones people have put time into, but right now we need better sources to keep this specific article. SportingFlyer T·C 05:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What BLP concerns? R. G. Checkers talk 09:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a poorly sourced BLP about a person who is quasi-public, ie likely to become private once their term ends. SportingFlyer T·C 04:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no inherent notability in being a local politician from a big city in a rich country. Obi2canibe (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - whether a city councilor is from Chicago or Lagos or Manila or Mexico City, they are assuredly notable. The emphasis is on big cities - not on their wealth or development. Consensus can change, but there needs to be some more input from a broader perspective. Bearian (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here. Let's give it another week. But this could close as "No consensus" depending on input over the next 7 days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social pornography

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Social pornography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only a single English-language source, and it's an opinion piece that does not appear to refer to the alleged Norwegian concept. No evidence that this is a notable concept—seems like a translated neologism. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Marques (football manager)

[edit]
Pedro Marques (football manager) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another sub-standard page created by User:Das osmnezz. Fails WP:GNG, and the subject of the article is very irrelevant, TBH. I'd also recommend a topic ban for the user, removing the user's rights to create pages, since several other users complained about the quality of the articles overall, and it has not improved ever since. BRDude70 (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Clearly notable witht he sources already in the article and many more Portuguese sources and he has ongoing career at one of top Premier League clubs. Saying a sporting director at one of top Premier League clubs is "irrelevant tbh" is a great rationale. I have definitely improved my page creation, especially formatting and will continue to improve, which has led to me creating way less articles than before. I always mind my own business and have never once attacked others unless I am attacked... I find threats from users like this one incredibly funny... nothing against them or their articles but I'm not super clear why someone whose last few articles include Albert Niculăesei Evellyn Marques, Izan Yurrieta etc is asking me to stop creating articles, like I am confused how they are somehow signifcantly better quality (I won't even get into the notability part, I do not think they should be deleted but am certain if I created them they would be deleted) than my recent pages like Johan Manzambi, Gaël Lafont, and Robinio Vaz etc. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Both you and BrazilianDude70 should save conduct disputes for User Talk pages and appropriate noticeboards, and keep it respectful. AfD is not a place to call for topic bans or the removal of user rights. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Das osmnezz: This is far from being a "threat"... I have raised the issue with you several times, yet you still continue to create one-line articles with the same pattern.
    You told me and @GiantSnowman that you would be improving your past creations. What about some of these: Ferrán Quetglas, Jesús Fortea, Óscar Mesa and so on? They're still pretty much the same, and they've improved when others actually took some time to do it. Seems like a clear WP:BURDEN to me, but @Zanahary is indeed correct: this is not the place to report this... I'll create an ANI or something like this when I have the time.
    About Marques, I still think one article from New York Times is not enough if there aren't actually any information about the guy, but I'll wait for other inputs (that's the main reason I've created this AfD). BRDude70 (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the last thing I will say about this on this deletion discussion: I have no idea why you are bringing up articles I have made a year ago... I have apologized, owned up to my old stuff and have clearly improved since then... if the whole issue is that I should go back and improve them, sure, I will put that on my priorities... ... you still have not clarified how your articles are somehow so superior to my recent ones. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Das osmnezz: I did clarify, you didn't understand. None of those articles have WP:BURDEN, that means users will only edit them to actually improve them instead of having to fix simple stuff. Plus, all are written in a decent way (I think) and have the correct pattern per WP:FOOTY/Players.
I only brought up old articles because you promised in your talk page, more than once, to improve your old creations. I didn't see you do so in every time you promised that. You only created more and more articles, which led to more and more warnings, and more and more empty promises.
Giving you a little perspective: it only took me a minute to find out Marques' full name and POB. All we asked you is more effort to create pages, to avoid more complains. Is not that hard, is it? :) BRDude70 (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lol my bad, I kept on interpreting it as mainly complaining about problems with recent ones instead of the improvement of old ones... I misunderstood the emphasis on the fixing of old creations so kept on creating new articles to show improvement. I am going to vastly improve many old articles, starting with the three above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Bicycle

[edit]
The Big Bicycle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Performed WP:BEFORE in Proquest, Newspapers.com and Google Search. Of the three sources used, the Atlas Obscura page is user generated. The other two pages are clearly not independent, promoting accommodation and merchandise. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; search turned up no apparent notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today&oldid=1238673950"