Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

20 February 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 19	February 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Theecember

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

Non notable musician - sourced to a combo of passing mentions and black hat SEO. Might be notable one day but that day is not today. CUPIDICAE❤️ 21:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Lock Up (company)

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

Unambiguously fails WP:NCORP, and bears all the hallmarks of WP:ADMASQ. The parent company doesn't even have an article to redirect/merge to. Kylemahar902 (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Illinois. Kylemahar902 (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Abdul-Ridha

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT for not having WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS and WP:RS whereby the sources talk about the subject in depth and length for WP:V. Announcements of competitions and results are considered routine sports reports and can not be used to contribute to notability guidelines requirements. Cassiopeia talk 20:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iraq. Cassiopeia talk 20:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Abdul-Ridha

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT for not having WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS and WP:RS whereby the sources talk about the subject in depth and length for WP:V. Announcements of competitions and results are considered routine sports reports and can not be used to contribute to notability guidelines requirements. Cassiopeia talk 20:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iraq. Cassiopeia talk 20:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amer Abdul Wahab

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT for not having WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS and WP:RS whereby the sources talk about the subject in depth and length for WP:V. Announcements of competitions and results are considered routine sports reports and can not be used to contribute to notability guidelines requirements. Cassiopeia talk 20:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iraq. Cassiopeia talk 20:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NFL's Greatest Games

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

While writing articles on some of the games listed here, I have been unable to verify almost any of the information contained herein. There appears to be no independent, reliable sources proving the general notability of this TV program. As such, I feel deletion is most appropriate. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kadha

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

No evidence of passing WP:NFILM. Paradoctor (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Paradoctor (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1st Gulf cup for Veteran Players

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

Not sure if we need a season article for an exhibition competition between retired players. Fails WP:GNG in my book, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. What is there to say about this competition? This page is just stats and whatnot. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Kuwait. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how exactly to format the reply, but I think it is notable due to extensive media coverage in the middle east, and a season article was created due to plans that this will be a biannual tournament to accompany the senior men's tournament. Exhibition matches and tournments have wikipedia articles if they are notable, such as Soccer Aid, Sidemen Charity Match, and 2025 NBA All-Star Game amongst many others Alitheboss55 (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Morgan

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

Per WP:BLP1E. While there are few reliable sources covering her crowdfunding efforts for education, other sources are either self-published or not independent such as[1], [2], [3] etc. Herinalian (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Canada. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gurhan Kiziloz

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, as most references focus on Lanistar and its FCA issues rather than him. The article also suffers from REFBOMB, creating a false sense of notability. With no in-depth, independent coverage about him, it fails to meet the inclusion criteria. Herinalian (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, Finance, Technology, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although Gurhan Kiziloz is not independently notable, Lanistar appears to meet notability criteria due to significant coverage. However, most sources are critical of Lanistar, highlighting its fishy marketing campaign[4] and its involvement with Gavin Williamson [5]. A separate article on the company may be more appropriate. Herinalian (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The comment suggesting that Gurhan Kiziloz is not linked to Lanistar and should have separate Wikipedia pages is incorrect and misrepresents the available evidence. Multiple reliable sources clearly establish Kiziloz's integral connection to Lanistar:

Gurhan Kiziloz is unequivocally linked with Lanistar:

Kiziloz founded Lanistar in 2019 and served as its CEO^[1].

He was known as "G" by Lanistar staff and owned 93% of the company^[2].

Even after stepping down as CEO, Kiziloz remained involved with Lanistar, seeking investors in Dubai^[3].

Characterizing coverage of Lanistar's marketing campaigns as merely "fishy" understates the significance of the regulatory and ethical concerns raised by reputable sources:

The UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) issued a formal warning about Lanistar, stating it believed the company was "carrying on regulated activities which require authorisation"^[4].

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled against Lanistar for making misleading claims about its product's security^[5].

Major publications like Financial News, The Jerusalem Post, and Fintech Finance News have reported extensively on Lanistar's controversial practices and regulatory issues^[6]^[7].

These sources demonstrate that Kiziloz's connection to Lanistar is significant and well-documented, and that the company's practices have faced serious scrutiny from regulatory bodies and respected media outlets. The Wikipedia article should reflect this comprehensive and nuanced coverage from reliable sources. JboothFN (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

La dama de Chez Maxim's

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

Tagged for sourcing since 2019. Unreferenced other than IMDb. Not clear this passes WP:GNG or WP:NFILM.4meter4 (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Udit Goenka

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Most of the references cited in the article revolve around a single tweet he made in the Bangalore vs. Gurgaon debate regarding the better place for tech companies. These sources primarily cover the controversy rather than his personal achievements or sustained impact in his field. Herinalian (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, Software, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per G5 by Hey man im josh. (non-admin closure)‎ Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yumna Majeed

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not notable yet. Herinalian (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Astronomy, Spaceflight, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Daddy Gets Married

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

Unreferenced article. Not clear this film passes WP:GNG or WP:NFILM.4meter4 (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added a few things. Meets WP:NFO at least for 3 reasons: screened more than 5 years after release/part of a retrospective on the history of cinema/ selected for preservation in a national archive. And this is without mentioning the numerous existing references in reliable sources that even a cursory GBooks search can confirm..... -Mushy Yank. 21:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

INAT

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, cannot find reliable or significant coverage of this organization. I want to note that prior to being converted to an article, it was a valid redirect to Inat, so I am actually voting for this page to redirect back to it (my WP:BOLD revert was challenged). jolielover♥talk 18:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Websites, and Canada. jolielover♥talk 18:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - fails NCORP. Herinalian (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria ICT Fest

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

Sourced to primary sources and routine coverage. Not notable. Princess of Ara 18:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Economics, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Shepherds Rest

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

A local pub, part of the large Greene King chain, that is relatively young (opened in 2000) and doesn't meet WP:NCORP. There are routine listings and pub reviews, but insufficient to establish notability. PROD contested with justification given (see Talk:The Shepherds Rest#Proposed Deletion Objection). Klbrain (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Architecture, Travel and tourism, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adventurer at the Door

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

Not clear this film passes WP:NFILM or WP:GNG 4meter4 (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The HR Db ( contains a critical assessment indicating a polarised reception. (http://hrfilm.hr/baza_film.php?id=200) Adding sources to page. A redirect to the author of the play or to a list of films seems warranted anyway. -Mushy Yank. 15:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Croatia, and Yugoslavia. -Mushy Yank. 15:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 16:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[note: I actually changed the topic of the article while sourcing it! Apologies if that is confusing; the page is now focusing on the feature film and the TV film (same year) is only mentioned in one section))][reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 16:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of those situations where the online sourcing is scanty but does point towards there being far more sourcing offline. A search in Croatian (in which I am not even remotely fluent) brings up quite a few hits. Most are in snippet view, but ones like this and this give off the impression that they go into some depth. We'd need someone with access to the book (and fluent in Croatian) to verify this. In this situation it seems like this is one of those situations where sourcing just wasn't uploaded online - something fairly common with pre-internet coverage. The article is likely going to be kept in a fairly stubby state, but the film is likely notable.

Now, an option here is that we could do a further revamp - instead of focusing on either films, we could make the article about the play and include some information about the films. The play is lauded as one of the playwright's most well known works but suffers from a similar issue in that a lot of the sourcing doesn't appear to be online. I think we could merge these all into a single article covering the play and films - that way we have coverage of a notable topic and what we have won't overwhelm the playwright's article with a lot of info on a single play. Mushy Yank - you did a lot of work on the page so I don't want to do this without running it by you first. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, feel free to change the focus of the page with only sections about the films. -Mushy Yank. 18:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. While it's hard to tell without being able to speak Croatian, I think the newly attached sources are satisfactory for WP:NFILM. Kylemahar902 (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Barnard

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

PROD contested, but I'm not seeing coverage to indicate notability Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Artists. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Poetry. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Gardiner Chess Centre

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

No sources, couldn't find many important sources to establish its WP:N. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 17:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 17:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Oliver (footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Some coverage in the last non league daily reference but no other SIGCOV found on WP:BEFORE. Canary757 (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Canary757 (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taku Morinaga

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

Hasn't played since 2019, fails GNG RossEvans19 (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brotherhood of Myriam

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

LLM-generated slop about non-notable organization. Appears to use self-published sources (which may not even actually exist). Skyerise (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keita Nozaki

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

Although he has played 43 times, he fails GNG RossEvans19 (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Herinalian (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jolyon Jenkins

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

WP:DRAFTOBJECT prevents me from returning this to draft unilaterally. I am unsure that would be my preferred action now it is in mainspace. Jenkins is presented as a good but WP:ROTM journalist doing his job. Many, most, of the references are his work, but they are not reviews of him nor his work, thus they provide no verification of any putative notability. WP:V is a key tenet of Wikipedia and is not satisfied. As presented and referenced I cannot see a pass of WP:BIO. A WP:HEY outcome would be acceptable. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, News media, Radio, Television, and United Kingdom. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creating (and main) editor moved this back to draft. I have moved it back to mainspace since it is mid process, and suggested to them that they offer an opinion here to draftily. Should they do so, and assuming that no-one has suggested deletion in the interim, I will withdraw the nomination in favour of moving to draft. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, should that happen with no intervening counter opinion, I am content that this signifies my withdrawal, and any editor in good standing may note that and close the discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have move protected the article to discourage another attempt on their end. If someone feels consensus is reached sooner than 7 days, any admin may lift if I'm not online to do so. Star Mississippi 14:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been substantially rewritten to clearly demonstrate the subject's notability through multiple independent sources. It now includes national press reviews from The Guardian, The Sunday Times, The Independent, and Radio Times, industry-recognized awards such as the One World Broadcast Trust Award and the Sony Radio Award, and evidence of significant contributions to public debate, including testimony before the House of Lords Select Committee on data protection. Given these factors, the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for journalists and media figures Frobisher2021 (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see this as an opinion that this be kept, and not draftified.

I am slightly saddened about this. Of the references that I can access, two only point to an award, which might confer notability. The others are simple evidence of Jenkins doing his job, which cannot verify notability. One is a programme listing, which shows that he has a programme, and another does not mention him. I have not changed my view, nor my willingness to accept a request to return this to draft as an outcome of this discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some citations are intended to verify that Jenkins produced or presented the programmes mentioned. In such cases, a programme listing is a valid source, as it confirms authorship and broadcast history. If there is a specific citation where Jenkins is not mentioned, I would appreciate clarification so it can be corrected.

Regarding notability, multiple citations go beyond listings and are national press reviews from The Guardian, The Times, The Independent, and Radio Times. The consistent critical acclaim over decades from respected critics (e.g., Gillian Reynolds provides strong evidence of notability, as it is not just passing praise, but exemplary recognition, going beyond “run of the mill”. If more evidence of this is required, it can be provided.

Additionally, Jenkins was Deputy Editor of the New Statesman, a major political magazine. His work has been frequently cited in peer-reviewed academic research and journalism studies, including publications like the British Journalism Review, Index on Censorship, and the scholarly book Investigating Corporate Corruption (Taylor & Francis). These citations further demonstrate his impact on journalism and public discourse. A section on this could be added.

Regarding awards, while only two currently have citations, further research is likely to provide more. The fact that industry-recognized awards cannot so far be backed up by citation in itself is not a reason for deletion, especially given the additional press and academic recognition.

Finally, if the objection is based on access to citations, Wikipedia's verifiability policy explicitly allows print sources, even if they are not personally accessible to all editors. Many of these sources are accessible through newspaper archives (e.g., Newspapers.com, The British Library), and all are fully formatted with author, title, and date, allowing verification through standard research methods. Frobisher2021 (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I feel this article, with some work, could be suitable for the mainspace. At this time, it is not ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktkvtsh (talk • contribs) 15:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I left this for this long in case the creator would agree to draftify, but that is not going to happen. In fact there is little point draftifying what is currently, and likely to remain, a non notable journalist. The problem with the sourcing has been explained by the nom., but to be clear: sources must not just be from reliable sources, they must have significant subject of the page subject (such that the page can be written) and, importantly, they must be independent. Interviews are not independent. Their own work and listsings of their work are not independent. There needs to be independent sources that speak about this journalist, demonstrating notability. We don't have that. So sourcing is lacking. We also have no indication of notability from any of the WP:NJOURNALIST criteria. The discussion of awards would be a criterion under WP:ANYBIO which states, under criterion 1, likely notability if The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. "Well-known" and "significant" are where this falls down, and that is even supposing those awards are for the journalist (some are) and not for the programme team (as, for instance, here [6] ). So there is no pass of ANYBIO on criterion 1. Even if there were, ANYBIO is only a refutable indication of notability, and the lack of sources that talk about Jenkins is the real reason that we should not be covering this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I would agree to draftify but I don't know how. Please take this as my assent. I am puzzled by your comments, which is not to say that I disagree with them but I simply do not understand.

I don't think any of the sources are interviews, so I don't see how that objection applies.

When you say "their own work or listings of their work are not independent" - but surely a listing of a work on a BBC website is sufficient to demonstrate that the work exists and that the subject was producer and/or presenter of it? (Because the listings say so and the BBC is authoritative on this point)

When you say that "There needs to be independent sources that speak about this journalist, demonstrating notability" surely multiple reviews from independent reviewers in the national press, which refer to Jenkins by name, in terms that make it clear that they consider his work to be notable, demonstrate exactly that? Again I am trying to understand, not argue.

On the awards, there are citations for all but two. The Radio Academy (Sony) awards are as significant as they come, and the others are (or were) major industry awards. It is true that broadcast journalism awards are given to programmes and not individuals, but in the case of the one you link to, Jenkins is both presenter and producer, i.e. the entire team. This is true of many of the other ones too. In the case of File on 4, each episode had two journalists (producer and reporter) as the BBC listings show. So the credit would be equally shared. Frobisher2021 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Fonseca (footballer, born 1993)

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

~~Unable to locate significant coverage of this individual. Searching turns up stats farms and namesakes, without any detailed information from independent sources.~~ C 679 08:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. C 679 08:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 08:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per WP:HEY. I added sources that demonstrate WP:SIGCOV, the player has relevant spells with several intermediate Brazilian football clubs such as Joinville EC, SER Caxias and Ypiranga FC. Svartner (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Despite recent expansion by Svartner, in my view, most of the additional sources are transfer reports and contract renewal. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added more recent transfer sources, but most of them provide a summary of the player's career in addition to all the relevant information to establish WP:GNG. I don't see any gaps missing. Svartner (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Svartner and AGF for notability. Giant Snowman 20:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am withdrawing this nomination per the good sources found and added by User:Svartner. @Clariniie: Could you take a further look due to the different state of the article now? 08:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)C 679[reply]
Regardless of whether those describe the person's career or not, transfer sources are considered routine coverage. Social media ones are user-generated and should never be used on Wikipedia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are not user-generated. There is a very limited number of people who have access to a club's Instagram profile. However, they are primary sources and do not contribute to notability. Furthermore, some "transfer sources" are in-depth and some (many) are not, no blanket statement can be made about transfer news - e.g. some sources use the transfer news opportunity to go into detail about the player's career, abilities, personality etc. At this point, anyway, the AFD can be closed in 20 hours after the normal elapsed time. Geschichte (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda agree if secondary routine announcements go in-depth about the person's career! This is such a thing that comes to my mind. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1. Soccerway: stats N. 2. GloboEsport 1: passing mention N. 3. Futebol Interior: routine transfer announcement nearly identical to the club's press release N. 4. GE 2: routine transfer announcement also derived from PR N. 5. Press release from 3, N. 6. Marcou no esporte: reprint of press release, N. 7. GZH: routine interview, little secondary coverage N. 8. GZH: transfer announcement, slightly more material than usual but all of it is shallow stats, not secondary analysis N. JoelleJay (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 8. source provides in-depth coverage of the player's entire career. The others complement practically all other remaining information. Excluding information that goes beyond the player's sporting career, there is nothing missing. Svartner (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – More complementary sources [7], [8], [9], [10]. Svartner (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources provide any coverage of him beyond listing which teams he played for and other trivial info from press releases (and the last one is a football club). That is all info we could get from looking at his stats page, thus routine and primary. JoelleJay (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Svartner's current sourcing for notability. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 04:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As JoelleJay stated, none of the sources indicate significant coverage required for GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As several other users stated, some of the sources indicate significant coverage for GNG. One user stating an opinion does not invalidate other users stating their opinion. Frank Anchor 15:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really understand the criticism that there won't be an article dissecting the entire life of a second-tier Brazilian football player, but all the information pertinent to his sporting career is covered by the sources. I think it's a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE. Svartner (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because content is verifiable doesn't mean it warrants its own separate page. Basically nothing here goes beyond what you can find in a stats database. JoelleJay (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per references provided by Svatner and others. I reject JoelleJay’s characterization of ref 8 as shallow stats, not secondary analysis as it provides coverage of the subject’s career to that point, beyond simple stats. Some of the remaining sources can be pieced together to get this past the GNG finish line. Per WP:NBIO, if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Frank Anchor 15:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 8 says Fernando was signed by Caxias in November last year . Before that, he played for Figueirense, Grêmio Barueri, Criciúma, Moto Club, Luverdense, Deportivo Tepic, from Mexico, Itumbiara, Boa Esporte, Joinville, Brasil de Pelotas and Cascavel. This year, he played in 29 matches, 28 of which as a starter.
In the Gaucho runner-up position , he played in 12 matches. In the Série D, he played in 17 matches. In fact, the defender was the team captain at various times this season.
Literally nothing in there has any depth of coverage; it's all stats one could glean from his transfermarkt profile. Nothing whatsoever useful for a biography. JoelleJay (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Anchor is somehow correct. As long as the routine story provides more details about a specific than announcement, it can be used, but multiple sources containing significant coverage are required. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see several sentences with more-than-routine details of Fonseca's career. In addition, the requirement of multiple GNG-required sources can be circumvented by pieceing together information presented in other sources, as specifically allowed by WP:NBIO (see my comment above including relevant excerpt from that guideline). Frank Anchor 14:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

? Where is that in the guidelines? Merely having additional details does not make something automatically SIGCOV, especially if it's simple prosifying of stats. This also really isn't "more details" than you get in routine coverage of announcements (which is explicitly listed in NOTNEWS). JoelleJay (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You left out the rest of the sentence you quoted from NBIO: trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. None of the other independent sources offer more than passing mentions. JoelleJay (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I left that out because it is not relevant here. The info surrounding transfer announcements (which are NOT primary in most cases as they are derived from and are not exact copies of the press release), along with some coverage provided by Svartner add a few sentences here-and-there of non-trivial coverage which compliments Ref 8 which was called out above. Frank Anchor 17:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is most certainly relevant here... WP:N says It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. The info in the transfer announcements, in addition to being routine (For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage and Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example [...] announcements columns [...] are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources), is coming directly from the press releases. What little there is about him that isn't in PR is trivial. JoelleJay (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:N, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:HEY. Z. Patterson (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I get the sense that JoelleJay's critical source analysis was not adequately refuted. Relisting in the hope of getting another experienced editor to analyze those sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kofi Owusu-Nhyira

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

A non notable lawyer and entrepreneur. The sources in the article and a WP: Before could not establish notability. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Ghana. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe subject is notable has received significant coverage in third party sources. Owula kpakpo (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is an unbolded Keep here from the article creator so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tula-Tu

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

WP:NOTNEWS. It's a newborn, how cute, lots of attention, but no WP:SUSTAINED notability at the moment. I redirected it, but this was reverted, so AfD it is. Can be redirected together with Rose-Tu (same issues, at Prod now) to Oregon_Zoo#Elephants where they can get one or two sentences. Fram (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Tula-Tu and Rose-Tu to Oregon_Zoo#Elephants per nom. Run of the mill coverage of a zoo animal but no WP:SIGCOV. Wikipedia is not an index of zoo animals. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Oregon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rose-Tu, her mother. I've contested the PROD, due to academic sources (The Rediscovery of the Wild chapter 6 for starters), but there's plenty of work about her, due to the animal cruelty article which resulted in a decent about of coverage over a period of 10 years. Yes, the current version is a bit sparse, but it's missing a lot of life details. But anyways, not looking to turn this to an AfD on Rose-Tu. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of Science (periodical)

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded after addition of indexing info. However, none of the added databases are selective in the sense of NJournals. PROD reason still stand, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, History, and Science. Randykitty (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ajnabi 2025

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

CSD is the best option for this album but there isn't a relevant CSD except using "Custom rational" but using that is not appropriate anymore because CSDs A7 and A9 had been used and declined by an admin because they do not apply in the article's circumstance. This album has zero source out there to indicate its notability for an article here. The creator of this article is possibly the owner of the album Mekomo (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mekomo (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Kefas Namisi

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

No reliable sources, only brief mentions, no notability, previously (in 2024) deleted 2 times via AfD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kefas_Brand_(2nd_nomination) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kefas_Brand Cinder painter (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The article was moved to Kefas Brand. The sourcing is all to puffery sources in African media. I can find no actual reviews of any of his performances. The article creator added his name to the main cast of I Woke Up a Vampire with citations, but I am wondering whether this is accurate. I cannot find either him or his character mentioned in plot synopses or independent reviews, and he isn't listed in the IMDb credits at all. However, the sources (none of which are particularly great) do name him in a cast list even though IMDb doesn't... Regardless, this is just one role and even if if is verifiable it isn't enough to pass the NACTOR SNG. On a side note, I was WP:CANVASSED by the article creator on my talk page to comment here, but obviously my opinion isn't what they were hoping it would be. 4meter4 (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kefas Brand (2nd nomination) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and Uganda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At first glance, this appears to have been G7 deleted by Hey man im josh (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)… but what actually was deleted was a redirect, as 伊丽莎白大声 (talk · contribs) has moved it to Kefas Brand, saying Kefas Brand is more suitable than Rodney Kefas Namisi since it’s the most known ñame I made a mistake when moving the page. I'm not sure that's supposed to play out like that during an AfD; this probably needs to be moved back to avoid a possible erroneous close for being already speedy deleted when that isn't entirely the case. (No other opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, even then I shouldn't have G7'd that because it was based on a page move, silly me. Anyways, I've reverted the page move. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Better Photography

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

No indication of notability; only significant coverage is press releases/churnalism. "It has won annual awards" is false; it presented the awards that are mentioned. This can be redirected to Network18 Group#Digital and publishing divisions, but there isn't really anything to merge. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Photography, and Maharashtra. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverages. AgerJoy talk 08:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Asteramellus (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as "delete", I have undeleted and relisted this discussion as requested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: So, I requested an undeletion and relist of this discussion after doing in-depth findings. I do not want to delete a 1997-founded "photography magazine", I also think we should be careful when judging notability of periodicals in general. A periodical that is considered reliable enough to be used regularly as a reliable source by a large number of other works (especially scholarly and other academic works) is considered notable enough to have an article, just the same as an academic who is highly regarded and widely cited is considered notable per WP:PROF. — This magazine has been cited in several reliable scholarly/academic publications; citation 3 here, same here, Figure 11 here, citation 15 here, same here, I see it cited as part of this research's result of analysis, citation 11 here, citation 2 here, right here, Figure 11 here, Gale Directory of Publications and Broadcast Media, The Lost Legacy of the Nilgiris, Figure 11, page 27, this piece. There are so many other citations I see from here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per VWF's rationale and sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the evidence detailed above that the magazine has been cited by numerous reliable sources particularly academic sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pervis Taylor

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

This is what appears to be a promotional article, with very questionable sources ranging from blogs to an Amazon listing. Does not appear to pass WP:NAUTHOR, nor WP:MUSICBIO. When conducting a before search, I've had no luck coming up with anything even remotely approaching WP:SIGCOV. Kylemahar902 (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Texas. Kylemahar902 (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clear paid-for WP:ADMASQ for a non-notable motivational speaker. No pass on any WP:NBIO SNGs, and I only see one source that might be WP:SIGCOV, but it appears non-independent given the promotional material that it includes. (Plus, seen in today's light the headline "From Diddy dreams to transforming teens" is quite unfortunate.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, and Health and fitness. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Niknam

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

Procedural nomination: article recently was blanked and redirected to Bunq (a company founded by Niknam) with the edit summary "not notable"; subsequently there has been a revert war with no further substantive discussion. I was alerted to the dispute by a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Ali Niknam page constantly reverted to redirect to one of his companies and am starting this discussion to settle whether or not Niknam is in fact notable or should redirect to the notable company he founded.

I have no strong opinion either way, but pinging Spokeoino (who wants to retain the article), NenChemist (who BLARed initially and presumably advocates for redirection) and Melody Concerto who reverted to the redirected version to give their own arguments. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for following up! Good thing to point out is that Ali Niknam isn't only known for bunq but he's also had a big impact through other companies he started, like TransIP and a data center company. This being said I don't think it's representative to be linked to one company.

There’s plenty of media coverage about Ali Niknam, which is showing that his work and achievements have been noticed and reported by various independent sources. There are plenty of sources in the article Ali Niknam Spokeoino (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, copyvio of ffnews.com/people/ali-nikam/. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KWMV-LP

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

Defunct LPFM that fails WP:GNG. Chuterix (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Chuterix (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with KLZR (FM): KWMV-LP was apparently replaced by KLZR; there is little need to split them between two articles despite the separate licenses. (This would have been a remnant of the lower standards of 2009 in any event.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is insufficient coverage of KLZR in either guise to merit an article, so a merge and then redirect is the best option. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KKJD-LP

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

Defunct LPFM that fails WP:GNG. Chuterix (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Religion, and Christianity. Chuterix (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with KKJD (FM): it's the same owner and in the same city, so this is a case where the LPFM was closed in favor of a full-power license. We don't need two separate articles for that. (This is a remnant of the lower inclusion standards of 2009 in any event.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KCSW-LP

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

Defunct LPFM that fails WP:GNG. Chuterix (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Chuterix (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A mention that the college had an LPFM could go in Culver–Stockton College. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 21:00, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Culver–Stockton College: the station is not currently mentioned there, but the little information here could be brought there without weighing things down. (The traditional alternative to deletion for non-notable college radio stations is to redirect to the school, but that would be a surprise without a merger.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I added one sentence with three references on KCSW-LP. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmazz

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

No single sources meets NCORP; routine not reliable and deep media sources; not notable company by its own Taking off shortly (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, India, United Kingdom, and Illinois. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 10:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found [11] and [12], Which are significant references from reliable resources. This company meets WP:NCORP. I can also see the page is reviewed by Klbrain and he stated on creator's talk page "Thanks for creating this page for a company, which has independent coverage focussing on the company which has drugs in clinical use." Bakhtar40 (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KFSC-LP

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

Defunct LPFM that fails WP:GNG. Chuterix (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Chuterix (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to state list. Insufficient coverage in local media. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: given the current lack of any mention on the list of radio stations in California, that might be the path of least resistance here. Since the soft-deletion ineligibility and resulting relisting stemmed from being the recreation of a previous PROD deletion (which the recreator acknowledged as such from the start), I mostly wanted to point out the rationale from that 2007 PROD: Article does not establish notability, and low-power FM radio stations in the US are generally non-notable. That stance, which may well be in-line with how LPFM notability (or lack thereof) is perceived in 2025, wasn't exactly widely shared in this topic area in 2007–2008 (an era of lower inclusion standards that generally assumed that merely having an FCC license at all was a sign of notability, without bothering to move on to confirming whether there was any significant coverage to back that up), or to some extent at any point before the 2021 RfC that confirmed the GNG as the notability barometer here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WOMM-LP

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

Defunct LPFM that fails WP:GNG. No sources. Chuterix (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Chuterix (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article at the moment cites two Burlington Free Press articles, and one of those articles was also in there at the time of nomination as an offline source. Not sure if those can or should be enough (I'm not offering an opinion at this time), but that is not exactly "no sources" either. (For completeness: the Big Heavy World source, since that entity was not independent of the station, is of no relevance here in determining notability.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This is one of the borderline cases, and I wish I had a little more recent coverage. I do not know why they turned in the license as there is no coverage. But coverage for an LPFM feels stronger in Vermont than most places (e.g. WOOL (FM) which was low-power for years). Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 18:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WXDB-LP

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

Defunct LPFM that fails WP:GNG. Only technical information. Chuterix (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Chuterix (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I disagree with the contention about "only technical information". There was substantial internal turmoil that killed this station within two months (!), but it led to a writeup in the Charleston newspaper, which is cited. This is probably a borderline case because of how short-lived it was, but those two refs of coverage amount to more than most of the LPFMs up for deletion. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 00:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Flames of Disaster

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

I'm not sure this actually needs a standalone article. What's here is pretty threadbare, being limited to a plot summary and a brief overview of the episode's production, and both of these feel like they can easily be covered within the main Knuckles article. The only sources I can find that aren't already incorporated here concern the Sonic '06 reference ([13], [14]) which seems like it can easily be covered in the "Legacy" section of the '06 article, and/or within a brief sentence in the "Reception" section of the Knuckles series article, and a Daily Dot article about the episode... not even really the episode, just the episode's title, becoming a short-lived Twitter meme ([15]), which I don't think is notable enough to mention anywhere at all.

Overall, I think I would favor merging this article's content into Knuckles (TV series), and then redirecting the title to either Knuckles (TV series)#Episodes or Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game)#Plot, depending on which one we think someone searching for "The Flames of Disaster" would be more plausibly expecting to see. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Television. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The episode does not have WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources in my view. Might need to be moved and then disambiguated after merging due to the aforementioned Sonic 06 reference. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kattuvallil Family in Onattukkara

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

Unverifiable. Fram (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Kerala. Fram (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Astaire (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the recent flurry of adding references has simply confirmed some peripheral facts but not added anything at all to notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arfaz Ayub

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

Doesnot pass WP:NFILMMAKER, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Taabii (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Taabii (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:DIRECTOR as director of Level Cross (film) -Mushy Yank. 09:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phinma Education

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

WP:CORPTRIV, press-releases, no reliable sources and coverage Cinder painter (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Gevorkyan

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

The person have not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. WP:CORPTRIV: "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, e.g.: "said Roman Gevorkyan, future administrator of the club" or "as Armenian businessman Roman Gevorkyan is strongly considering a bid.." Cinder painter (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MyRepublic

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

The article was completely rewrote without providing external information, meaning that the article only focus on the Indonesian markets, rather than it's origin (Singapore-based). VernardoLau (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. VernardoLau (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to former state, and close the AfD. Yes, the article got hijacked by an editor whose username suggests that they work for MyRepublic Indonesia, and they converted into an exclusively Indonesian article. The editor is currently indefinitely blocked. If the problem with the article is merely that it is still heavily contaminated by their work, then it should be restored to what it was before they started. We only need a deletion discussion if we are considering deleting the previous article. Is that the case? Elemimele (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In case for the point of view, yes, that's the issue. VernardoLau (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Banks

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

Reverted on the AfC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clayton_Banks on 5 December by 24eeWikiUser, and suspiciously reuploaded by another editor 2 days later into main Wikipedia space. Seems like an organized attempt to push the person onto Wikipedia. The sources provided did not allow to establish the person's notability. Cinder painter (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, United States of America, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Faezeh Mohammed Hassan

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

Fails ANYBIO; apparently not a notable artist, with paid publications (and interviews) written in an awkwardly promotional tone; winner of the unknown 'prestigious' biennale. Cinder painter (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG jolielover♥talk 16:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Donglai

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

Does not meet ANYBIO; not a notable businessperson. Could be redirected to her company page as an option for the closing admin. Cinder painter (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TM Technologies (company)

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

No reliable sources required per NCORP; press releases or other not relevant not reliable references Cinder painter (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, under WP:G11, this is an advertisement masquerading as an article. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Soccer drone spying scandal

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

Only short-term attention, no long-term impact. 日期20220626 (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Olympics, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. There's been at least two waves of substantive coverage, the first throughout July-August when the scandal broke, and the second throughout November (e.g. [16], [17], [18]) as more information came out and the coach resigned. It even got some substantial academic analysis ([19]), and coverage in other months (October, September, September. This is pretty enduring coverage for a scandal, and it seems to have had major effects on the Canadian soccer program. At worst this would be a merge to the Canada Soccer article, but right now I think there's enough to justify a stand alone article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the points made by Eddie891, it is a significant example of ethical issues raised by drone technology in relation to sports, which will have ongoing importance. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It’s had such significant lasting impact as to an ongoing investigation, overhaul of the women’s team, and one of the longest-serving members of Canada Soccer staff quitting in disgrace. That we don’t constantly update articles during investigations, especially if there may be legal ramifications, is perfectly normal. That the incident drew in French police and affected other Olympics teams makes its impact and scope even greater. Kingsif (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – "Only short-term attention, no long-term impact" is not a reason for deletion, see WP:DEL-REASON. There are many other single-occurrence event articles. Regardless, I would also debate that there is no long-term impact. Kodak11111 (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Aravena

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

Declined prod with reason he was Pan american champion. I could not find sources to verify this. Google news comes up with a Chilean politician with the same name. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. Note he did not finish the sole Olympic event he was in. LibStar (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, Olympics, and Chile. LibStar (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Pan American champion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also appears here, providing his birth place and name. He's also served as a coach. Bedivere (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 16:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesnt meet WP:GNG . need more SourseMonhiroe (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote, Monhiroe. What is your deletion rationale? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Provided sources (More could be found with a simple Google search. Obviously expect Spanish-language sources, not English ones) are sufficient IMO. Bedivere (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this one is a 1 line mention and not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That one may be a one line mention but expect significant offline coverage. This 1981 magazine for example makes extensive coverage of his triumph at the Panamerican games. Bedivere (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The curicopedia source is not a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#curicopedia.org. LibStar (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read the 1981 magazine when I click it, just shows a very small scanned page. LibStar (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Curicópedia used to be a wiki but it isn't anymore, so the "open for editing" claim is not true. You should be able to search inside the magazine, try searching Manuel Aravena. Bedivere (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Curicopedia is not reliable and should not be used for establishing notability. LibStar (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Strike Curicopedia. We still have claims of notability here and there, and since his participation in some Pan American competition (not the Pan American games as Sam Kuru points out) dates back to the 1980s, there may be offline material since he is claimed to have won a medal or something. Bedivere (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Curicópedia is unsourced and user-generated and can't be used as a source here, but it can certainly be used to provide information to search on. Note that the Panamerican Games didn't happen in 1981; I think that's another large-scale event that he won. I think Bedivere is right - there's likely to be a decent amount of offline material on this. Unfortunately, my Spanish is also from the 1980s. I was able to find minor mentions in 1980 fairly quickly, and small mentions here, but that looks a little bloggy. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's the Pan American Road Championships, see here.Sam Kuru (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insufficient independenf WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. 201.226.200.75 (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC) — 201.226.200.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
thank God this is not a vote. Bedivere (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Qafë Prush

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

THis was a minor skirmsih. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there are ALOT of minor skirmish and this is more some sort of Attack on KLA fighters killing one of the notable generals and wounding two others Unknown General17 (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the point, there are lots of minor skirmishes, in all wars. We do not generally have articles on them. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are alot small ambushes that are kept which didn't do anything in war Unknown General17 (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It being a minor skirmish isn't a reason in itself for deletion. A, few, other, examples. What matters is notability. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 12:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But this does not seem to pass wp:n. Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

5 sources. 4 of which look to be reprints. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If i add like 1-2 new sources will you remove the thing for deletion? Unknown General17 (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would all depends on on the quality of the sources and the coverage. Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added 2 new sources, one Albanian and other is from Kosovo site on Serbian language Unknown General17 (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both trivial mentions, about a person. Notability is not inherited. We need sources to establish THE BATTLE in and of itself is notable. Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that battle isn't notable but it shouldn't be deleted Unknown General17 (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources show the battle being a topic that is covered.. it is also notable because it is where KLA fighter Luan Haradinaj was killed. There are many articles about the war in same style that were created which are not maybe major but which are listed as KLA or Albanian victory like Anadrinë offensive, Surkis ambush. Battle of Rezalla (1997), Battle of Jezerc, Battle of Hajla Pass, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.55.28 (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anadrinë offensive and Battle of Jezerc started the "frontal-war" in their respective regions; Anadrinë offensive for the Paštrik and Anadrinë region while Battle of Jezerc for the Ferizaj and Neredimë region. Battle of Rezalla was the first large-scale battle of the entire Kosovo conflict so for "Kosovo War-standards" they are pretty notable. For Battle of Hajla Pass there is currently a discussion and Surkis ambush is minor and has also been nominated. Peja mapping (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to discuss this article, not any others. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Peja mapping (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failsWP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it fails General notability then alright but I don't think there is reason for deletion Unknown General17 (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG; the only thing worth noting was Luan Haradinaj's death, and the events are already covered on his article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory M. Auer

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

Shot some legendary films, yes, but has no viable third-party coverage. Article has had next to no content and poor sourcing since 2007 creation. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 06:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Film. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 06:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:CREATIVE Various sources discuss his work for very notable films, especially Phantom of Paradise and Carrie, indeed. They include Mitchell, N. (2014). Carrie Liverpool University Press, p. 39; De Palma, B. (2003). Brian De Palma : interview University Press of Mississippi. p 41; The New Yorker. (1976) Volume 52/6 - Page 183; Bouzereau, L. (1988). The DePalma cut: the films of America's most controversial director New York: Dembner Books, p. 44 -Mushy Yank. 08:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you share what those sources say as viable third party coverage? I found the first and second but I was unable to read them. In a review of the first book which I could read, De Palma is mentioned often but Auer wasn't mentioned at all which strikes me as the reviewer not finding mentions of Auer enough to be notable. I am all for keeping more pages on Wikipedia, given enough content and notability. Moritoriko (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first evokes the films he has worked on; the second is BdP saying why and how he worked with him and how much he appreciates his work, the third indicates the importance of his work in Carrie, the fourth indicates how he worked on the supernatural forces in Carrie. MANY other sources in various languages (EN, FR, IT, etc) indicate his work for Carrie was important in making the film what it is. -Mushy Yank. 10:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, after further digging I was able to find the 3 books (no dice on The New Yorker) and I strongly disagree that any of those 3 offer enough to meet the criteria. In Interviews he talks about his production secretary, Wendy Bartel, as much as he talked about Auer. I'm very impressed with how you were able to find those references to his name but I am sticking with Delete. Moritoriko (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first book only mentions Auer once in passing, The DePalma Cut two paragraphs (see archive.org). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Third book only has this to say:

> He's very good. He's a nuts and bolts kind of guy...very soft spoken. He used to work for Disney.

Moritoriko (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to find more sourcing to back up your argument. Offhand I'll say this - I've actually heard of the guy and he's been dead since the 90s. He's somewhat known in the horror/exploitation flick crowd, since he did the effects on some pretty major movies in the genre (Carrie, Dirty Marry Crazy Larry, Phantom of the Paradise).

Offhand I did find this review from the New Yorker that mentions his work in Carrie. I think we should count reviews like this towards notability because well, individual special effects people typically don't get mentioned in sources unless they've made a name for themselves. They don't get the big attention unless they manage to make it super big ala Tom Savini (or dip their toes into other fields more likely to get sourcing - also ala Tom Savini). My point is that special effects people are part of a group that's kind of like educators - we need to take the smaller mentions into consideration.

Other than that, I do think the obituary could be usable. It's not written by the family or the funeral home - it mentions services, but it looks like it was written by an unrelated journalist. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this book it's specifically mentioned that Auer's work in Carrie was imitated by other, subsequent horror films - implying that he's made an impact on his field. I'll see if I can find other things beyond Carrie, of course. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At bare minimum I think we should at least redirect with history to the film article for Carrie - that seems to be what is bringing up the most promising results. I could swear there's more out there and that I've seen mention of him in various RS, it's just not coming up for me. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 08:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After trying to search around with various terms in addition to his name all I was able to find was a 1 sentence mention of his involvement in the special effects in Carrie in the Independent, which certainly doesn't qualify for GNG Moritoriko (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, that mention alone is not enough for GNG but is a strong indication other sources should confirm he meets WP:CREATIVE. Which I think he does. -Mushy Yank. 10:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a local obit, not much more Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MagiHaro

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

Just a game listing. Clubette (month) 05:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Clubette (month) 05:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this game on List of Konami games? IgelRM (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No content, just a list fueled entirely by primary sources. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 07:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Byng Arts Mini School

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

Delete or merge and redirect to Lord Byng Secondary School, per WP:ORG and WP:PROMO.

The Byng Arts Mini Program is a notable part of the school and the Vancouver school system, but it is not significant enough on its own to merit a separate article. The Vancouver school district has many other mini school programs in other schools, and while the Byng Arts Mini Program has unique aspects to it, the coverage available isn't enough to establish it as especially notable.

The version of this article before I edited it had two in-line citations; most of the article has been unsourced for over a decade and a half. Although more sources were added for existing content on the day of this nomination, most of the article remains unsourced and reads like a directory or guide for applicants to the program. This is not what Wikipedia is for, and the Byng Arts website serves this purpose already and in a more detailed manner.

If a merger is decided, reliably sourced and encyclopedic content should be merged into the Lord Byng Secondary School article. Merged material should also be checked for 'academic boosterism', which I would argue is present throughout the near entirety of the article. Yue🌙 05:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Yue🌙 05:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ravencroft

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

Fictional prison from Marvel/Spiderman verse. Pure plot summary and list of appearances. No reception, analysis, etc. The topic also has a section in Features of Spider-Man media (a problematic article that is currently discussed in its own AfD). I doubt we need even a single mention of this on Wikipedia outside a plot summary in some Spider-Man arc or comic; we certainly don't need two. This could be ATD-R to the mentioned article, but IMHO that one should be deleted as well, so... shrug. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Features of Spider-Man media. Though that article is up for AfD right now, the content will likely be merged to another article if merged, or kept around if kept, so I'm comfortable leaving a redirect here. Features of the Marvel Universe is also a decent merge target should that article be kept, but it's a bit up in the air right now given all these AfDs are active at the same time. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect I think we this we should wait with this discussion on the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Features of Spider-Man media and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Features of the Marvel Universe, both potential merge targets. Both are covering this topic. But they could benefit from some references here. This ScreenRant article, while not establishing notability, has relevant commentary to show that this topic can be covered beyond just plot-summary and real-world appearances. Daranios (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If you want this discussion to wait until the previously mentioned AFD debates have concluded, why do you have merge/redirect verdict instead of a suggestion the Delay the AFD verdict or something like that? --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't presume to speak for Daranios who I am sure will correct me if I am wrong, but I am assuming they agree the nominating topic is not notable and should be merged/redirect somewhere, with the best target being in the air for now, depending on whether the other mentioned article or articles survives the AfD or not. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rtkat3: I would prefer to wait with the decision until we know the result of the other AfDs. I just thought I cannot be sure if a closer will follow my request, so a selective merge as described would be my opinion if I am forced to decide now. Does that make sense? Or is there a different suggested procedure for such a case? Daranios (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD for Features of the Marvel Universe has already closed due to an amount of keeps it received. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's weird: The AfD has been reinstated, but with no trace of the intervening closure. Well, let's see what happens there. Daranios (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more worthy sources can be found by other contributors or merge with Features of the Marvel Universe in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. As mentioned above, the AFD for Features of the Marvel Universe has closed as keep. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different proposed target articles right now. And the correct link to the Marvel AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Features of the Marvel Universe (3rd nomination).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We Got Communication

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD in 2017 was no consensus. I tend to agree with one of the delete voters' comments from last time "Lacks reviews, sales, charting, depth of coverage. Current sources just verify it's existence but don't provide any real independent coverage". An added Amazon source hardly adds to notability, Australian Music Online is just a database listing. Still fails WP:NALBUMS. LibStar (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gill Whitty-Collins

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

I've done enough new page patrolling to have my spidey sense go off whenever I see a BLP by a single-purpose account about someone described as "keynote speaker, consultant and coach" with a copyright infringing photo.... and this biography (which is basically WP:ADMASQ for the subject's book and consulting practices) is no exception. I do not find any notability pass for this individual. A quick review of sources: WP:PRIMARYSOURCE bios/event descriptions ([20], [21], [22], [23]), Q&A-based WP:INTERVIEWS ([24], [25]), and an apparently self-published blog post summarizing a university group's book club reflections on the subject's book. In my WP:BEFORE search, I found only one independent, reliable source review of her book, so I don't see a WP:NAUTHOR pass. I didn't find WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources for a WP:GNG pass. (She's covered in the Daily Mail, but that's a deprecated/unreliable source per WP:RSP.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Bellinzona Ladies Open

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD had limited participation so renominating. Fails GNG and WP:EVENT. The sources provided in last AfD were not reliable: tennis-related media and youtube. LibStar (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Events, Tennis, and Switzerland. LibStar (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has received enough coverage in Swiss outlets: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] Astaire (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ange Auguste Joseph de Laborde de Boutervilliers

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTINHERITED. Accomplishments and sources are lacking. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, France, and Alaska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Tagged for CSD, the page was deleted by User:Jimfbleak per this log. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ishagoro

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

None of the sources are about, or mention the subject. There are no claims to importance that can be sourced or verified. Possibly an autobio or one written by a friend. Fails GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 05:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Double Album (NOFX album)

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM because the media have written in-depth descriptions of this album. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: do you mean "have not written"? Geschichte (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scuse me whaaat? Liberal pick from the reviews quickly found on Google: [33], [34]. [35], [36]. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Webber

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

Subject is not notable, does not meet WP:ATHLETE and does not have enough news coverage. Tarkminas (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Tarkminas (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently she did win a gold medal in the 2003 World Rowing Championships, so I get plenty of hits on random sports statistics websites and such, but not seeing anything at in terms of coverage. I think someone created this article along with others like Liane Malcos just to fill out the redlinks, and such articles do not contribute to the value of the encyclopedia. Kylemahar902 (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Her gold metal in international champion ship is noticeable achievement and many ghits. BTSfangir1 (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Wikipedia:Notability (sports) requires coverage. Even if she won the gold metal, unless there are reliable sources talking about here, its just not notable enough. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 16:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had a good search online and couldn't find any additional sources. --Spacepine (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Amioun

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

Interesting one. I am removing a CSD tag that states, in essence, that the article is a hoax. The problem is that there are sources, albeit weak ones that appear to be motivated by a particular interpretation of history because it supports their religious beliefs. If we decide to keep an article on this topic we would want coverage of the possibility that the subject battle never took place. I do believe that deletion is likely the better outcome which is why I am listing it here. Uninvited Company 17:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Uninvited Company 17:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Lebanon, and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weakness is definitely a consideration. The first source is the defunct WWW site of a catholic church in Pennsylvania. However, there's an 1899 source by François Nau (Opuscules maronites) that talks about "combat près d'Amioun" and in its turn sources the claim to the writings of Étienne Douaïhi d'Ehden, so this might need more scrutiny than just outright dismissal for being mostly sourced to a dead anonymously-written inexpert early 2000s WWW site, although there's still the possibility that al-Duwayhi invented this and Nau offers scant independent corroboration. Uncle G (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added additional sources backing the documentation of the battle. The claim that the subject only exists because of certain authors backgrounds is problematic in it of itself but has little strength unless one were to argue that Gibbons, Hitti, Sandrussi, Selim and Encyclopedia Britannica were all Maronite apologists. The prerequisite of the battle not happening or else it will be deleted does not have any justification and seems to just be an excuse to delete the page. Red Phoenician (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CarDekho Group

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

Repost of content previously deleted and salted at CarDekho/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CarDekho/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CarDekho (2nd nomination) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Internet, Transportation, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Education Reform in Kentucky

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

This is an old Wiki Ambassador Program article, and has all the worst tendencies of such articles. Issues are as follows:

Though the titular subject is a notable one, it's not clear why it should be separate from History of education in Kentucky
The text is of low quality and reads very much like a high school paper, not like a proper WP article. It's basically a long three-point essay.
It's at least a decade out of date.
It contains no discussion of important topics like the very important 1990s education reform, the CATS test and its successors, or the 2024 referendum, apart from one sentence at the begining
It makes vague statements about AP classes not specific to the topic, or summarizes old opinion pieces, without providing any useful information.
Sources range from mediocre (local news articles) to abysmal. One of them now links to a spam site.

There is no part of this article that would be worth incorporating into the history article, nor any other article, nor to any future rewrite of this article. Any editor who wishes to write a coverage of this topic, and the relevant points in #4, would be better off expanding History of education in Kentucky#Since 1990. Nicknimh (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

edit: I will add that Education in Kentucky#Reform has decent coverage of this topic, though it could use an update. Nicknimh (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a badly-hidden WP:COATRACK for charter/voucher school programs and forced AP programs and outside of that just is unabashed activism to remove power from the Kentucky Department of Education to pacify special interests. A very poor article. Nathannah • (chatter) 02:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kentucky has an interesting education history; in the late 1980s, the entire state education system was found to violate the state constitution! But this is an essay. A couple of references could survive in History of education in Kentucky but little else. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 02:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- And there's also Amendment 2 failing in 2024. Yes, plenty of history and neither article has any of it. Uncle G (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Education, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly an unencyclopedic essay. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:COATRACK. Per nom, there's nothing to salvage in this article, so I think the best option is to remove it from the platform.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shenzhen Airlines Flight 9648

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

This minor, non-fatal airline incident fails WP:NEVENT. It got a burst of (mostly tabloid) coverage in the few days after the event, but there is no WP:LASTING effect or WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Without sustained coverage, this also fails WP:NOTNEWS and thus WP:GNG. (Fram's PROD was contested by page creator, who is now blocked as a sock.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and China. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or weak keep. On a purely WP:GNG basis, there's enough sourcing to justify notability. It's definitely not a great article, but that's why I asked this article to be restored so it could be improved. guninvalid (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a minor incident with no coverage beyond the initial news cycle and no lasting effects. A clear WP:NEVENT fail. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This event seems to have had no lasting effects and no sustained coverage. The most recent source seems to be this SCMP article from two weeks after the incident; the article mentions no lasting effects beyond: "After the incident, the head and deputy of Taizhou’s civil aviation administration were suspended from their duties." Since the creator is a blocked sock and the article has been thoroughly refbombed, including with a source about a completely different incident, I will not do my own search for sources. Toadspike [Talk] 08:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jihobbyist

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a neologism, and does not meet our standards for it. There is actually a lot of usage of the term, but it's always referring to it in the context of its creator, and should be merged to the creator of the term, Jarret Brachman. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage. It's hilarious, and I'm a fan of portmanteaux myself (I invented mergetarian in 2008), but as the years have passed, we've become more strict with notability. Bearian (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Science Center

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

This is an article about a local museum with little notability outside of town that has now closed. Only recent articles are about its closure from local sources. Braedencapaul (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Science, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Brownsville crash

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not pass WP:NEVENT. The coverage is not WP:INDEPTH enough to write a satisfactory article, and the coverage is not particularly sustained. Nothing between sentencing and incident, or since. On the balance of things this does not pass our guidelines and there is not enough to write a decent article. This wasn't even intentional, they sentenced him over intoxication manslaughter, so I would oppose merging it to any attack list. We could probably merge it for two sentences to Brownsville, Texas#21st century, because it seems locally significant, but there isn't anything to say besides it happened, no background or aftermath, etc. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Texas. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inappropriate creation of a news story as an article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No lasting coverage past when the incident occurred except for a couple articles about the conviction, which also didn't get any lasting coverage after a day or two. NOTNEWS certainly applies here. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Dakota State Trojans football team

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. This is an article on a fifth-tier (1. FBS > 2. FCS > 3. Div II > 4. Div III > 5. NAIA) college football team that won no championships, made no post-season appearance, and compiled a 6-5 record. The article lacks any WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources, and my WP:BEFORE search did not find any. Cbl62 (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and South Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Dakota State Trojans football team

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. This is an article on a fifth-tier (1. FBS > 2. FCS > 3. Div II > 4. Div III > 5. NAIA) college football team that won no championships, made no post-season appearance, and compiled a 6-4 record. The article lacks any WP:SIGCOV from reliable independent sources, and my WP:BEFORE search did not find any. Cbl62 (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and South Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Dakota State Trojans football team

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. This is an article on a fifth-tier (1. FBS > 2. FCS > 3. Div II > 4. Div III > 5. NAIA) college football team that won no championships, made no post-season appearance, and compiled a 1-9 record. The article lacks any WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources, and my WP:BEFORE search did not find any. Cbl62 (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's articles on each Dakota State season from 2015 to 2024 – perhaps merge them all into a decade article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three problems with merging: (1) from past discussions, closers can't and won't do that unless someone takes the time to create the target article, (ii) decade articles are normally done from the start of a decade to the end (e.g., 2010-2019), and in this case we don't have a run of articles that covers a full decade, and (iii) even a decade article has to have some level of SIGCOV, and I'm not sure it exists on this progrm. Cbl62 (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What set of years do you think would be necessary to have them merged? Perhaps the creator, @SS2027:, would be willing to do a merger article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and South Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jauer (surname)

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

There's only one person with the surname. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The corresponding German article at de:Jauer has more people. de:Nikolaus Magni von Jauer treats Jauer as a surname, although the English article Nicholas Magni does not. The person was born in Jawor (German: Jauer), which explains that instance of the surname. An alternative to deletion would be to merge this into Jauer (disambiguation), but that's propbably not necessary given the other names shown in the corresponding German page.

Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: two of the three entries are a mere translation from German, but the Jauer toponym they refer to is Jawor. The third entry is already listed at the disambiguation page Jauer. Broc (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary split from Jauer, which makes it harder, not easier, for users to find the intended target. Geschichte (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Fitchburg State Falcons football team

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. This is an article on a fourth-tier (1. FBS > 2. FCS > 3. Div II > 4. Div III) college football team that won no championships, made no post-season appearance, and compiled a 1-9 record. The article lacks any WP:SIGCOV from reliable independent sources, and my WP:BEFORE search did not find any. Cbl62 (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 04:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suchithra Alexander

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

Fails WP:NCRIC. WP:BEFORE search gives no secondary sources. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dalga Beach

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

Intentional or not, from the clearly advertorial tone to the sources they provide to their own website, this is clearly a WP:BROCHURE and fails GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Garden Village, Swansea

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

WP:BEFORE finds no independent significant coverage, indicating notability under WP:NPLACE. Appears to be the name of a commercial housing development, rather than a legally defined place Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United Kingdom, and Wales. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Garden Village is on the List of Standardised Welsh Place-names, which suggests a legally defined place and not just a housing development. I could check Hilling 2018 when I have my copy to hand, to see how in-depth its coverage is. Ham II (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ "How Lanistar boss's crypto coin blitz left investors out of pocket". Financial News. 2024-06-15.
^ "Lanistar CEO on Gavin Williamson, expansion and new funding". Tech.eu. 2024-03-08.
^ "Lanistar CEO on Gavin Williamson, expansion and new funding". Tech.eu. 2024-03-08.
^ "Regulator issues warning on hyped fintech Lanistar". Sifted. 2023-01-13.
^ "ASA rules against misleading communications by Lanistar and Laybuy". Finextra. 2021-05-26.
^ "How Lanistar boss's crypto coin blitz left investors out of pocket". Financial News. 2024-06-15.
^ "The unsung heroes of innovation: Gurhan Kiziloz and the rise of Lanistar". The Jerusalem Post. 2024-12-15.

[1] "How Lanistar boss's crypto coin blitz left investors out of pocket". Financial News. 2024-06-15.

[2] "Lanistar CEO on Gavin Williamson, expansion and new funding". Tech.eu. 2024-03-08.

[3] "Lanistar CEO on Gavin Williamson, expansion and new funding". Tech.eu. 2024-03-08.

[4] "Regulator issues warning on hyped fintech Lanistar". Sifted. 2023-01-13.

[5] "ASA rules against misleading communications by Lanistar and Laybuy". Finextra. 2021-05-26.

[6] "How Lanistar boss's crypto coin blitz left investors out of pocket". Financial News. 2024-06-15.

[7] "The unsung heroes of innovation: Gurhan Kiziloz and the rise of Lanistar". The Jerusalem Post. 2024-12-15.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]