Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 24	January 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Tony Caprari

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

This actor does not appear to meet WP:GNG/WP:NACTOR. The sources in the article are either user-generated sites or simple listings that don't provide significant coverage. In my WP:BEFORE, I was able to find passing mentions like [1][2], but no other significant coverage. The page was previously draftified, so taking to AfD for review per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and South Africa. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Ngọc Kiều Duy

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

This was a pretty straightforward PROD that was declined, so here we are. The article is clearly in violation of the WP:BLP1E policy; all the sourcing says is that the person won a beauty pageant on December 28. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Vietnam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Phachi collision

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. The event doesn't appear to have much coverage after it originally occured, failing WP:LASTING. Let'srun (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Thailand. Let'srun (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SIGCOV. The event is only published by one reliable source Bangkokpost twice. I find it very hard to get more reports about this event even upon all reverse searches. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 20:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Was the subject of an hour-long TV documentary on PPTV.[3][4][5] --Paul_012 (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per said documentary. Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉edits 17:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a subject of a documentary and well sourced. 223.204.68.125 (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adedayo Olawuyi

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

The sources fail Wikipedia notability guidelines and a WP:BEFORE did not show that the subject is notable. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Nigeria, and Uganda. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A CCO or COO of a company can be notable, but they are not automatically considered notable without significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is significant media coverage of Adedayo Olawuyi - the article should be expanded more rather than deleted. If you look at the other managers of the same company (including some junior to him and arguably less notable) there is a good precedent and template set to build the articles to properly capture the notability. SM105 (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now expanded the article somewhat and added a number of additional independant secondary sources. I think the article now more than adequately satisfies notability requirements. SM105 (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow consideration of improvements made in the last week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: AirSpace Africa appears to be the only item directly about this person in a RS. Sources 7 and 8 are non-RS per Source Highlighter. I can't find anything extra we can use that talk about the person, mostly they are about the airline. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

D'Nika Romero

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

Fails WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG as to her college basketball playing and in general. Fails WP:NMODEL as to career as a model. No independent, third party references for modelling career. In this context, the publications in which her image appeared are not reliable sources for a modelling career. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Sexuality and gender, Basketball, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CJK Unified Ideographs Extension B

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a WP: DICTIONARY. This article was deleted in 2007 but recreated for reasons that aren't clear to me. I don't believe this article can be expanded beyond the definition of the ideographs based on a search for sources, and even if it can, I don't believe the hosting of these massive tables is appropriate for an encyclopedia. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Computing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Although it's a technical article, the information about the proposals and history of this Unicode block round it out to be a complete article. DRMcCreedy (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible rationale. I never said this was an “incomplete” article. None of this is responsive to anything I said above. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood "I don't believe this article can be expanded ..." to be a criticism of the completeness of the article. I remain opposed as it's part of a complete set of Category:Unicode blocks. Probably another horrible rationale on my part. DRMcCreedy (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've had two chances to forward an actual argument and you have failed to do so. This is just WP: OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In all honesty, most of the articles in that category should be deleted. The existence of other articles to make a "complete set" does not mean this article should be kept. We are talking about Wikipedia articles, not trading cards. HyperAccelerated (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We have extension A to I plus some supplements. Why was just B suggested to be deleted? Christian75 (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that most of these pages about Unicode tables should be deleted. The best practice for nominating large quantities of articles is to pick one article, see how discussion goes, then nominate the rest, per WP: MULTIAFD. This rationale also happens to be WP: OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Can you please make real arguments? HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came looking for meta information about this code block and this article was the best I could find. It’s clearly not a dictionary entry. It’s also not a simple list (although I appreciate that the added list is better than the pdfs by unicode.org themselves). The information *about* this block is more relevant than the list itself. On the main article there is not enough space to give all the relevant details. Sure it’s technical, but so are articles about quantum mechanics. I was thinking about linking to Wikipedia on this topic for a project that I’m working on, but clearly that would be stupid, since articles get deleted all the time (and no, I don’t trust archive.org to save everything). Reading your deletion argument, you write that “[you] don't believe this article can be expanded beyond the definition of the ideographs based on a search for sources”. Perhaps we didn’t look at the same article? (I’m not going into the edit history now.) To me the meta info already looks quite substantial. Maybe other information will turn up later? Looking at your criticism of other replies , I wonder a little what you *would* accept as an argument against deletion. Simple usefulness does not seem to be enough. To me it *seems* you have some ideal of what an encyclopedia article should look like in your head, and this article does not meet that ideal standard (just guessing, sorry). By the way, I felt that your replies to DRMcCreedy comments were unnecessarily harsh, but I’m not a Wikipedian so that’s perhaps the reason. Hurdsean (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Simple usefulness does not seem to be enough." Right, it's isn't. I'm happy to explain. The argument that "it's WP: USEFUL" is a textbook example of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. This would be a very open-and-shut case if someone came forward and said "Keep because X and Y sources exist, which establish that the subject meets WP: GNG". Most of the information comes from primary sources (i.e. sources closely affiliated with the development of the Unicode standard), which can't be used to establish notability. (I agree that there are sentences that are outside the table, but the amount of content in the lede is vanishingly small in comparison to the actual table.) This is the standard that has existed for well over a decade at this point, because the Wikipedia community has recognized that quibbling over subjective notions of "usefulness" is a hilariously bad use of volunteer time. I understand if these policies aren't entirely familiar to you, but a user that's been here since 2006 (!) definitely knows better than to make fictional arguments. We've deleted similar pages off of Wikipedia before (see this AfD), so this nomination is more than reasonable. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know. That’s why I’m not a Wikipedian. I replied against my better judgement. Perhaps I should delete my account as well? At least that is my first impulse. I still contribute on Wiktionary occasionally, maybe better keep it alive? BTW I consciously didn’t write delete or keep, I just wanted to remind you of a users perspective. O, one thought before I leave you to it: this usefulness versus notability contrast reminds me of another discussion, the one between research in science for its own sake and research aimed at a specific utilitarian goal. It’s not completely analogous, but to me it seems similar enough. Bye now. Hurdsean (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

O, silly me, I can't delete my account. Hurdsean (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I try to avoid involvement in arguments, but I thought "what?!" when I saw this article is nominated for deletion. Wikipedia's Unicode blocks for CJK characters are the best (links to Wiktionary, easy to copy and paste to look up elsewhere if they're not on Wiktionary, etc.) and them being concisely in one place is convenient. Also, the Unicode addition history and what types of characters are encoded, "trivia" like how (in Extension C) 𪜈 is encoded even though it's actually katakana, etc. are all valuable information.

Not saying "please keep!" wouldn't stop it from being obvious I wish they'd be kept, so... please keep? If an article being useful, valuable and informative isn't a "valid reason" to keep, then Wikipedia has more uses than whatever it's supposed to have. If the decision will be to delete, then I hope they'll be copied to Wiktionary first. VHGW (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Cruwys

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

Can't find non-database sources. Jay Cubby 21:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cricket, and England. Jay Cubby 21:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She is mentioned in several contemporary-ish cricket articles^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] and I also found one historical source where she has a small write-up along with her teammates.^[5]

I don't have access to any paywalled newspaper archive sites, but if someone who does is willing to look, I think it's possible she could meet sports notability criteria with additional sources from the 1960s-1970s. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I searched newspapers.com. Almost all mentions are routine match coverage. The two exceptions are [6] and [7]. Unsure if that's enough for notability. Jfire (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akwasi Mensah

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

Non-notable American football player. Can't find any reliable sources about him besides the linked stats database in the article. Jordano^5³ 21:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Jordano^5³ 21:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Jordano^5³ 21:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jordano^5³ 21:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ribu

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

Not apparently notable. Sourcing seems largely to a book or websites by Daniel Quinn. No evidence of wider sigcov or notability Golikom (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Ribu classification system offers a valuable framework for identifying and studying prominent peaks worldwide, particularly in regions where topographic prominence has been underexplored. The concept has gained recognition in the mountaineering community and is referenced on platforms such as Peakbagger and the Relative Hills Society. Similar classification systems, such as Ultras, are widely regarded as notable due to their influence on geography and outdoor activities.

According to the Ribus media and article page, the Ribu concept has received coverage in newspapers, magazines, and online media across multiple countries, including the UK, US, Indonesia, and Austria, with references dating back to 2009 and as recently as this month. This international attention demonstrates sustained interest and relevance. Additionally, recent research has improved mountain infoboxes on Wikipedia, particularly in terms of prominence and listings, addressing gaps in geographical data.

Given the concept’s role in fostering exploration, environmental awareness, and its documented coverage over many years, the Ribu classification meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines for significant, reliable, and independent coverage. Urlatherrke (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the Ribu concept and list is covered in the February 2025 edition of Geographical magazine, the magazine of the Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers). This is further evidence in support of notability and I have added a reference on the Wiki page. Urlatherrke (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete GBook and GScholar come up with essentially nothing relevant. People do estash a class of first-class peaks by height, but this isn't it. Mangoe (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course it isn't a list of 'first-class peaks by height'. It is about topographic prominence rather than height, and defined wholly by the figure of 1000 metres rather than subjective concerns such as whether or not a given mountain might be 'first-class'. Urlatherrke (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Daniel Patrick Quinn. I'm not seeing significant coverage here as a topic separate from Quinn and his page is currently very short. I would also note for the closer that Urlatherrke is a WP:SPA who has done little other than promote the Ribu concept. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has followed the Ribu concept closely over the past couple of years, and is actively using it to plan mountain hikes, I can attest to its significance and much broader impact beyond Daniel Quinn’s individual involvement. The Ribu classification system (based on the objective criterion of 1000 metres of topographic prominence) provides a globally applicable framework for studying and appreciating prominent peaks, particularly in regions where such data has been underdeveloped (there are many of those). This makes it invaluable for filling gaps on many mountain pages across Wikipedia where data is currently missing. It is surely the job of editors to expand these pages in order to improve their accuracy and the level of worthwhile (i.e useful) detail within Wikipedia.

The system’s clear parallels to widely recognized classifications like the "Ultras" (which involved at least one and maybe more of the more recent Ribu project researchers) further reinforce its legitimacy and relevance within geography and mountaineering. The Ultras is a list only around 1500 peaks long yet has been an invaluable source for quality content on Wikipedia mountain pages for many years, indeed probably close to a couple of decades. The Ribus database includes 7150 peaks, according to an objective criterion similar to the Ultras, so it is a clear development which is of benefit to Wikipedia. Why dismiss the Ribus on flimsy grounds when all mountain pages on Wikipedia have infoboxes with a prominence field that needs filling in, something the Ribus project is ideally positioned to assist with! I don't think there is a good answer to that.

Merging this concept into Quinn’s biography would be inappropriate, as the Ribu classification is not the work of a single individual. As highlighted on the World Ribus website, numerous researchers have played a role in refining and disseminating the framework. This demonstrates that it stands as an independent and noteworthy topic, separate from Quinn’s personal projects. Urlatherrke (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Added to WP:CLIMBING and sports delsort in hopes of finding editors who can speak to Urlatherrke's comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find use of this term in Gscholar, so I wonder how well-known it is. I don't see notability with the sourcing now in the article. Mountain geography isn't my specialty however. Oaktree b (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Foxtails (band)

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NBAND. Going through the 6 sources, the first is their personal bandcamp, the second is an article I don't have access to but it seems connected to the band, the third is "foxtails interview", fourth is "new album out now", fifth is a review of one of their albums (no significant coverage about the band), and sixth is an interview about a new EP release. My external searches give me little more than what is here already. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Their bandcamp was only used as a source for the pronouns of the band members, since some older interviews do not reflect the current pronouns used by the band members. The second source is an article from the Hartford Courant, a newspaper from Connecticut. This is not connected to the band in any way, nor are any of the other four sources. I suppose there is also a bit of a discrepancy about what we consider to be coverage of the band. I would think that coverage of an artist's works would be considered coverage of the artist since the purpose of most music publications is to talk about the music itself. Unless you are only including sources which talk about the band members' personal lives and disregarding sources about their music, which seems somewhat counter-intuitive for me. To my knowledge, there is not a specific minimum number of sources required to establish notability, but I thought five (not connected to the band) would be sufficient. If this is not the case, how many sources and/or what types of sources would have to be added for the article to not be deleted? Thanks. Ptarmica (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vigraharaja IV's first war against the Ghazanvids

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

Regardless of the notability of the event (which I cannot check definitively, partly due to my lack of expertise in history in general, and partly due to some of the sources about this being books I do not have access to), it is clear that this article is almost wholly the output of an AI chatbot and therefore in dire need of WP:TNT. I am surprised that an obviously AI-written article has slipped below the radar for so long. Java Hurricane 19:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, India, and Rajasthan. Java Hurricane 19:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is poorly notable, and once I questioned about the existance of the battle by its name (earlier name of the article), the creator changed its name by thier own synthesis. There is no way anyone can create articles as such "X's war aganist Y", in MILHIST topic area, as it opens ways for many such poorly notable military conflicts. Also, the article lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources, and existing sources found to be lack reliability as it is built on many assumptions, like "thr ruler might have fought..." etc. Additionally we can see the creator used much offensive terms in the article itself (obviously targetting a community). --Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
note to the closer : Please check the background and edit history of the voters, as meatpuppetry and sock puppetry is common in this TA.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The above user's request is superfluous and somewhat discourages other good-faith editors from participating in this discussion. They should immediately strike their comment and refrain from doing so again. I don't think any user would want to feel monitored for their !vote. @ImperialAficionado, don't you think that was completely gratuitous? An instance of WP:ABP I'd say. This is not the venue for WP:MEAT presumption/allegation. Please don't bludgeon the process and instead keep it confined to SPI and ArbCom.Mithilanchalputra (Talk) 10:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not bludgeoning here dear. I've pasted this notice in a lot of AFDs, been doing this since a long time, and editors who're experienced in this TA would understand why I am doing this. Several AFDs has been manipulated by several newly created puppets, and we just don't want to continue those actions. Imperial ^[AFCND] 15:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're exactly doing this right now by dominating the discussion. Everyone should have a chance to express their views, but after seeing that comment, they might feel reluctant to do so. I've also participated in many AfDs that involved sockpuppets, but I've never seen anyone unnecessarily questioning the background of editors. Instead, they file SPIs for the users they suspect. Honestly, I'd think twice before getting involved here, and that's probably why we haven't seen much participation since the nomination. Several experienced editors might agree with you, but it could also come across as biting newcomers. My humble suggestion would be to use the appropriate platform to report any suspected "meatpuppets," request clerks to review their "edit history," and consider retracting your comment above. Mithilanchalputra (Talk) 04:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Keep: After reviewing the article myself, I would say keep the article, but do not let sources of legends overshadow conclusions of actual historians. Also, change the title of the article to "Battle of Khetri" instead. I wouldn't exactly call it a "war". It was more of a battle.

P.S.: Although the Ghaznis were Muslims, it would be better to refer to them as Ghaznis and not "Muslims" as a whole, for example, saying, "war against the Muslims", seems a bit sentimental. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Life_and_Culture_in_Medieval_India/2wFuAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Vigraharaja+khetri&dq=Vigraharaja+khetri&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ancient_India/XNxiN5tzKOgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Vigraharaja+ghaznavid&pg=PA337&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/Indian_History/MazdaWXQFuQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Vigraharaja+ghaznavid&pg=RA1-PA12&printsec=frontcover — Preceding unsigned comment added by SavetheSouthofIndia (talk • contribs) 04:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Instead of deletion, it can be rewritten properly. The topic has SIGCOV in [8] and [9]. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Koshuri Sultan: and if rewrite wholly we must, why not start from scatch again? There's not much of an alternative to a fundamental rewrite in any case, for the article as it stands is, quite clearly, the output of an AI chatbot (WP:LLM) and more or less unsalvageable. Java Hurricane 07:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DINC. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Koshuri Sultan: citing DINC isn't a particularly great idea if the whole article is useless and unsalvageable, as is the case here. That is exactly what the TNT essay covers. Java Hurricane 13:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this is AI-written material that needs WP:TNT. https://wikipedia.gptzero.me/ agrees as well. -- asilvering (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the text is dire and we have no solid indication that the whole thing isn’t just made up. Three sources are cited, of which two are inaccessible and one doesn’t appear to have anything to do with the subject. I’ve looked online for in depth coverage in RIS and not found it. If there is a valid topic here it needs to be started again, with proper referencing and not dubious links to inaccessible google books. Mccapra (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be genuine doubt about whether this "war" ever actually took place, and the text we're provided with is AI-generated slop. TNT.—S Marshall T/C 01:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All issues aside, the fact that this was written by AI is enough to warrant its deletion. And this is on top of other issues as outlined by imperial. This article is a product of synth and the event isn’t notable per the lack of significant coverage from reliable sources.

Someguywhosbored (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Birbhum (1743)

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

This article relies heavily on works like "Seir Mutaqherin Or View of Modern Times" and "Hooghly: The Global History of a River," which are not widely cited or considered credible in scholarly discussions on the topic, violating WP:V and WP:RS. The article contains original research, especially in its narrative of Alivardi Khan’s strategy, which is not backed by verifiable sources, thus breaching WP:NOR. The battle is portrayed in a simplistic and historically inaccurate manner, failing to provide a balanced and comprehensive view of the Maratha-Bengal conflict, and the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources makes the event non-notable, violating WP:N. CelesteQuill (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A book published by OUP is hardly unreliable. Content disputes should be sorted out on the talkpage, not on AfDs. LucrativeOffer (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination, no significant coverage about this battle. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Minor military engagement, found no in-depth coverage in any reliable sources. Furthermore, Battle of Birbhum by name, doesn't exist as a battle by itself.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete background waffle and no details about the alleged battle indicate that it is not notable. Mccapra (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rudra Shiva (statue)

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

Fails WP:GNG: no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sources include two travel blogs, Tumblr, a Tripadvisor-like website, three websites promoting tourism in the area, and one news article. Suggest redirecting to Devrani Jethani Temple Complex. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Travel and tourism, Mythology, Hinduism, India, and Chhattisgarh. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect: There does seem to be a book written about the statue which contains articles/chapters written by several scholars including Michael W. Meister and Hans T. Bakker. However, I cannot access this source presently, and the article in its current form doesn't really say anything that isn't already mentioned in the article about the temples, and I suspect parts of it were written using ChatGPT. -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC) Please see below[reply]

* Redirect to Devrani_Jethani_Temple_Complex#Rudra_Shiva_Statue. RangersRus (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC) See note below.[reply]

Delete The title of this article is actually not specific to the statue at this temple complex - Rudra is a name of Shiva / Siva (see Shiva, Rudra, and also [10], and there could be (probably are) many statues of Shiva in the form of Rudra. If anyone was searching for this particular statue, they would be likely to include a place name - and indeed, the book found by AmateurHi$torian and an article I found on Google Scholar [11] refer to it as the Tala Icon or the Tala Siva. (Both of those sources are already included as references in the article Devrani Jethani Temple Complex, though not in this article.) So I don't think it's an appropriate redirect. I think it might be more appropriate to include a photo of this statue and a link to Devrani Jethani Temple Complex in the Rudra article - or a list within that article of notable statues of Rudra - and certainly better to delete this, it doesn't add anything to what's already in the Devrani Jethani Temple Complex article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think this content should be merged (and redirected) into the Rudra Shiva statue section of Devrani Jethani Temple Complex because it's possible there are other statues of this god such as at Rudra Mahalaya Temple and Rudranath. Also, there are other temples like Shivoham Shiva Temple that have famous statues which don't have their own articles. Lakshwadeep (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. The solution to this problem would be to disambiguate, not delete. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or keep. A good amount of info is clearly available, but it seems like consensus is saying its not enough for separate article. Keep the info, dump the rest. It does seem likely that a book and article being written about something would refute the claim that it fails WP:GNG Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, well sourced, meets GNG, and per above there is an entire book written about it. Given the sources and topic I'm not understanding why this is even nommed. At first I thought this was a piece of modern art, quite sophisticated for its era. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source Analysis:
- Source 1, boloji.com is unreliable source where if you love to write and share, your name can also be a part of boloji's ever-growing list after you agree to their terms.
- Source 2 is a district tourism page promoting the tourist location.
- Source 3 is unreliable Tumblr. (Social media)
- Source 4, trip.com, has nothing significant or even passing mention.
- Source 5, Chattisgarh tourism pdf page promoting the tourism place and tourism information centers.
- Source 6, inditales is unreliable Travel blog.
- Source 7, naidunia, news and current Affairs portal, covering news from the states of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. This has same promotional content from tourism sites.WP:NEWSORGINDIA.
- Source 8, same chattisgarh tourism page with promotion and advertising excursions, packages for the tour. RangersRus (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's an entire book written about this statue (see above comment), which qualifies as a reference. The statue is obviously notable as an artwork, and that it is part of an existing temple has little to do with this stand-alone notability. Quite the statue. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not able to access those books and maybe that is why they are not on the page maybe because of lack of content verification. Going by the sources on the page, Redirect or even delete is strong case as made by RebeccaGreen. I do not see with poor sources on the page, what is to be merged unless those books can be accessed. If anyone can access those books, please let me know and I can check to see if Merge to Devrani Jethani Temple Complex is also an option. RangersRus (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article is kept, I recommend renaming it to Tālā Rudra Shiva, for the reasons I gave above. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Devrani_Jethani_Temple_Complex#Rudra_Shiva_Statue has much better coverage with reliable sources where changing the name from Rudra Shiva Statue to Tālā Rudra Shiva is feasible. RangersRus (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Devrani Jethani Temple Complex. The article is in poor shape, but the existence of a book focused on this statue and held in many academic libraries [12] demonstrates notability. I have no objection to a rename. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Page Devrani_Jethani_Temple_Complex#Rudra_Shiva_Statue where I am proposing to Redirect to has good enough coverage with reliable sources talking about the statue at the Complex. I do not think we need a separate page for it. RangersRus (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rescue - While the article is in poor shape, I've found another source (a PhD thesis) which covers the subject in some detail, and now think it can be rescued even if we cannot access the book edited by Nigam. I've prepared a draft at User:AmateurHi$torian/sandbox1 -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also support the renaming as proposed by RebeccaGreen, per their rationale. "Tala" is specified in all academic sources. -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salama Mohammad Salama

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

Briefly famous for a single event, with little information available beyond what is noted at Clarissa Ward. No coverage in mainstream news sources since this single event. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Syria. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Low-level military person, that no one had heard of before the event. Nothing found in my searches either. Interesting tidbit from the war I suppose, nothing needing a whole article here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wedge Group

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I came to this page from Rob Marris, who is apparently the board director for the holding company of Wedge Group. I was going to copyedit the article, but then started looking for better sources and found no significant coverage outside local/industry news. Here is what I have found:

An article (archive link) in the Birmingham Post about a new plant built by the group. This is already cited in the article.
A very short Suffolk News article about a visit by Nick Timothy MP to an Acrow Galvanising plant. Acrow Galvanising is owned by Wedge Group.
A short article in the East Anglian Daily Times about Acrow Galvanising changing the livery for their vehicles.
A short Insider Media article which mentions Wedge Group in passing as a former employee was given a job at the CBI.
A short Scottish Business News article about "Scotland's largest [galvanising] bath" which was built by a company owned by Wedge Group.
An article in the Express & Star discussing the conversion of an old school building into the headquarters for Wedge Group.

There are a few other small articles elsewhere, but I believe all of the coverage I have found falls under WP:ORGTRIV, and is aimed at either local or business audiences (WP:AUD). Pink Bee (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Engineering. Pink Bee (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention that technically this article has been nominated for deletion before, but the AfD tag was removed as no reason for deletion was given. Pink Bee (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shibu Chacko

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of a recently deleted article of someone with an MBE, but with little other sign of notability. The recreation doesn't look like an obvious G4, but I don't think much has changed since the recent previous discussion. Salting might be something to consider. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Medicine, India, and United Kingdom. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monophile/Archive tells an interesting story. Maybe this page needs to be salted. Badbluebus (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom., created by a new user (account created 20 days ago) and only edited this page so may be a case of WP:COI.TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kerala and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg Miller

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

No independent notabilty from his invention. At most, kept as a redirect. Qwirkle (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Neuticles, Unnotable inventors usually are redirects to their inventions. George A. Bayle Jr. redirects to Peanut Butter, for example. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ajgaibibi

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

Current source do not support this article and google book search does not return much to improve the artcile. Wiki Library returned no match. One source cited is an encyclopedia for "Oladevi" and the term "Ajgaibibi" is mentioned only once. Also, the cited source does not give clarity that this word is used for Hindu goddess as described currently in the lead sentence. Asteramellus (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Asteramellus (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maffian

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

This particular extended play (EP) fails WP:NALBUM and is not notable. It did not chart on any country's official music chart and was not critically reviewed. The article's critical reception section is misleading to say the least. The OkayAfrica and P.M. News sources cited in the article are not reviews. I redirected the article to its parent article per criterion 6 of NALBUM, but User:MakeOverNow reverted my edit. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised that you think that Maffian didn't meet WP:NALBUM, but the mistake was made by the editor who published this article that didn't provide enough notability. The EP charted on US & UK Apple Music Album chart at #57 & #82 and peaked at number 2 on Nigeria Apple Music Album Top 100 and number 3 at TurnTable Top 100 Albums. [13][14]. Remember Boy Spyce (EP), or Soundman Vol. 2 didn't provide any chart or review to meet WP:NALBUM. MakeOverNow (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Music Charts are considered WP:SINGLEVENDOR charts and cannot be used to establish notability. Although Turntable is a reliable chart, simply having an EP chart doesn't justify a separate article. The fact of the matter is that Maffian was not discussed in reliable sources or critically reviewed. I am not sure why you're comparing Maffian with those two other projects. For your info, both Soundman Vol.2 and Boy Spyce were critically reviewed. Show me multiple reliable sources that reviewed the EP and I will change my vote. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nine+ Records

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

The record label fails WP:GNG and is not notable. All of the sources cited in the article are press release info about the the label's launch. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a promotional website. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Osprey Island

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

Article about a small freshwater island in an inland reservoir, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for geographical features. As always, every island on earth is not automatically notable enough for its own standalone article just because it exists, and we need to see reliable source coverage and analysis about it to establish its significance -- but this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as maps, tourist directories and government or organizational reports, with absolutely no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy sourcing shown at all.
An island needs a lot more than just basic verification that it exists before it becomes notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Scotland and Islands. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there is no evidence of an "Osprey Island" in the cited sources – the ordnance survey map cited shows an unnamed island in the reservoir, and the PDFs mention islands without naming them. It looks like the term "Osprey Island" is at best a local nickname that so far has no documented use outside of UGC in a Facebook group. Even if the term had been in use, it probably wouldn't need its own article separate from Gladhouse Reservoir – if there is any material worth saving here, merge it into that article (without using the name "Osprey Island", because the sources don't support it). Joe D (t) 19:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The name came from what I had heard from many locals, as well as the Facebook Group. I found the island very interesting and thought it was notable and should have an article because it had an Osprey nesting site, which is quite a rare animal in the region. I thought that the article would by more informative if it used a real name instead of "Unnamed island" or something else. The name was what I heard after real life and online research, most locals you ask will call it that. I think the article is definitely helping raise awareness for an important site, and the name Osprey Island, although not listed on the Ordanance Survey, is pretty much the official name of the island. I don't really have anything else to say, the article is certainly not misleading in any way. ThatAntGuy (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prasanna Ernest

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

WP:BLP of a mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show significant reliable source coverage supporting substantive content about their mayoralty -- specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their leadership had on the development of the city, etc. -- but this, as written, is basically just a résumé of her career and personal background, without any significant content about anything she actually accomplished as mayor, and is referenced to a mixture of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all (an archived version of the city's website that doesn't even name her as having been mayor at the time, and thus doesn't even verify the fact that's been "cited" to it) and short blurbs that aren't substantive enough to get her over WP:GNG if they're all she's got for coverage.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something a lot more substantive than this, but a mayor requires a lot more than just basic verification that she exists. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Make America Rock Again

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

Article about a concert tour, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NTOUR. As always, concert tours are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they happened, and have to have a significant volume and depth of reliable source coverage about them to establish notability "in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms", while "sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability." (Both of those are direct quotes from NTOUR.)
But this is not showing any of the required type of content or sourcing: the article is clearly from the "this is a thing that happened" school of concert tour articles rather than the "adding any NTOUR-compliant context" school, and it's referenced to just six footnotes of which three are primary sources that cannot support notability (the tour organizers' own self-published website and a ticket sales platform), and the other three are just basic announcements that the tour was happening, with absolutely none of the detailed analysis of its creative, cultural or financial significance that NTOUR requires.
As always I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if somebody with more knowledge of contemporary hard rock and heavy metal than I've got can improve the article, but a concert tour needs a lot more than just simple verification that it happened. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's some basic announcements around it, but there's nothing there meets WP:NTOURS. It's a pretty run-of-the-mill tour by a bunch of bands well past their time in mainstream popularity, that caught a couple headlines because they aped a popular catchphrase at the time. Sergecross73 msg me 17:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Utopes, Jax 0677, Tavix, and Schützenpanzer: Courtesy ping the participants of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 19#Make America Rock Again to make them aware of this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Limbuwan–Gorkha War

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG, The article only has one source and that too fails verification. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Nepal, India, Bihar, and Sikkim. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Creator of this article is currently banned for persistent addition of unsourced content TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murtadha al-Yusuf

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

Article without notable sources, simple passages in the press. Fails WP:GNG Bexaendos (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Journalism. Bexaendos (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article lacks sufficient reliable sources that provide significant, independent, and in-depth coverage, as required by WP:GNG. The references currently cited appear to be simple mentions or trivial coverage in the press, which do not establish notability. Without substantial evidence of notable achievements or influence in the field, the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhey City (talk • contribs) 14:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liga Futbol Inc.

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

Fails WP:GNG, at best should be merged with Philippines Football League. There is a lack of available published info about the LFI itself. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Football, and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 20:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funny Papers (Mac Miller song)

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

There isn't any significant coverage. All sources found write about the song in the context of the album or in passing mention. WP:NSONG not met. Redirect to Balloonerism. Frost 14:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Approov

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are routine startup news, funding and PR scope_creep^Talk 12:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will go through the first block of references in a couple of days. Written by a paid editor by the company. Promo piece. scope_creep^Talk 14:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 17:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Henderson

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

As per WP:NRSNVNA. Fails Verifiability and i couldn’t find any coverage of him. Apart from a very old Washington post mentioning him, there is no recent coverage whatsoever. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 13:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Dance. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 13:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Missouri. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 17:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Westcroft, Staffordshire

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

Not a village or even a hamlet. Source 1 is a photograph of a farm. Source 2 is a map. Source 3 mentions the farm in Source 1. Source 4 mentions the name of the place. Source 5 doesn't even appear to mention it. It is practically an orphan having two links to main space (although one of these is also up for deletion). The article itself gives us its location and says it is primarily residential. And that's it. I am not seeing anything that gives a credible claim to notability, even with the latitude shown to places. KJP1 (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't have strong feelings either way, but I'm not sure it's true to say that this is "not even a hamlet". We do have a problem with people creating articles for "places" that turn out to be just a farm and a word on an ordnance survey map, but in this case Westcroft has signs announcing it on entry (on Google Streetview), is a Westcroft Ward on Essington parish council, has a Westcroft Neighbourhood Watch, is the name of the bus stops. I'm not saying that these things necessarily indicate notability, only that this instance is not a case of somebody mistaking the name of a farm on a map and inventing an entire place from it. Joe D (t) 12:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken. But even if it is a hamlet, and the article just calls it a residential area, I'm still not seeing any claim to Notability. KJP1 (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Essington: looking further at this and at Underhill, Staffordshire, I would merge them both into their parish, as is fairly common for unremarkable hamlets that will never have more than a couple of paragraphs to be said about them. Joe D (t) 13:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Essington#Essington Parish. Insufficient material to pass the GNG. Rupples (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once you all get to the early 19th century histories of Staffordshire and discover that there was a Hilton Park in Hilton township in the Cuttleston hundred, of which only Hilton Hall remains; which is, contrary to what Wikipedia says, the actual source of the name for Hilton Park services (and apparently all of the other things Bing Maps tells me are called Hilton Park something around there); and which encompassed West Croft Farm and Essington Manor, then you will know what the actual encyclopædic subject is here. Hilton Park and Hilton do not cover any of this, observe. We are missing this almost entirely, because we only cover 1 building. Uncle G (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- White, William (1834). "HILTON". History, Gazetteer, and Directory of Staffordshire. Sheffield: Robert Leader. p. 235.
- "H.C. Vernon, Hilton Park Estate, Wolverhampton". The reports of Andrew Thompson to the Inclosure Commissioners. Collections for a History of Staffordshire. Staffordshire Record Society. 1996. pp. 125–127.
- "West Croft Farm, Essington". Staffordshire Past Track.
- Useful for creating Hilton, or expanding Hilton Hall. But for this? KJP1 (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - We all have tools that can edit the content and change the title of the page. And now we all know that the subject isn't a "residential area"; which was unresearched rubbish, but unresearched rubbish that can be edited. Nor is the farm the real subject. This is exactly the same situation as with Grove Avenue, London (AfD discussion) and Hanwell Park 15 years ago. That was fixed by editing and page moving, too. Uncle G (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we've established that Westcroft is a residential area, albeit a small one about which there will likely never be more than a stub of encyclopedic content to be written – we would normally cover such areas within their parish articles. If you want to write an article about Hilton Park, it would be odd to start it from an article of which you do not intend to keep the title or any of the content. Even if you did create a Hilton Park article and mention Westcroft in it, it would be more use to readers who are looking for information about the settlement for the redirect to be to the Essington article. Joe D (t) 00:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Essington. My source search lists this as a farm, and the index of the best source I found says "see Essington." However I do see that there is a physical sign announcing you are entering Westcroft, so I think this can possibly be saved. SportingFlyer T·C 20:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Szego

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

This is a case of WP:BLP1E, the subject is only notable for their sacking from The Age. The rest of the sourcing that I've found, both in the article and through searches, is either not independent or not in-depth. I've considered the possibility that they might pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC and I don't see that either is the case. TarnishedPath^talk 11:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Journalism, Sexuality and gender, Israel, Palestine, and Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 11:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Natività della Vergine, Thiene

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

No sources to establish notability per: WP:N. See talk page for more info. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Italy. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A before search brought up possible Italian scholarly articles on this church. No comment on notability yet though. SportingFlyer T·C 21:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Otumfuo Educational Fund

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

Fails WP:NCORP and Wikipedia general notability guidelines. Almost all the sources are either primary or press releases. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Ghana, and United Kingdom. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the sources, and in my opinion, they are OK. However, if it were up to me, I would not call the article "Otumfuo Educational Fund" but rather "Otumfuo Foundation" which is actually the umbrella organization for funding educational and other projects. The "Otumfuo Foundation"/"Otumfuo Education Fund" has actually been in existence for 25 years so it is not what one would call a "fly by night operation". Will do a bit more work on older sources - if that is the issue presently under discussion. AbrewaAccraLady (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Utterly fails WP:ORGCRIT and nothing to establish WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Pichal

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

This person is convicted of ~~accused of and on trial for~~ (revolting) charges but does not appear to be independently notable (I can't find any WP:GNG-qualifying coverage prior to his arrest) from what he's been charged with. Per WP:CRIMINAL and WP:BLP1E, we shouldn't have a biography of this individual~~, at least not until the trial has concluded with a verdict~~. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Crime, and Belgium. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I agree with the nominator that he does not pass NCRIMINAL, but looking at the sourcing on the nl.wiki page nl:Sven Pichal, I do think he passes NBASIC as a TV personality, with articles about him in major publications. Haven't searched too much though, but he is not BLP1E. Also, from what I can tell he was convicted in December 2024. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, missed that in the sources. Can you share the coverage you saw that you think clears the WP:SIGCOV bar separate from the crime? Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: PARAKANYAA, thanks for referring to the NL page. The subject clearly passes GNG and WP:CRIMINAL. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how he meets the CRIMINAL requirements? (The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or [t]he motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. I don't think either applies. The question is whether there are enough sources outside the crime to warrant a GNG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tried a .be websearch for news on this person before the trial, there isn't any. News is about the incident at work or about the trial, he was sprayed with urine at one point... I don't consider much of this terribly notable. The lack of any sourcing before the incident shows this isn't a notable individual. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He doesn't appear to have been an on-air personality, so not well known by the public in Belgium. He worked behind the scenes. I'm not sure that's enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cayden Lee

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of this college football player to meet WP:GNG. There is this routine story on his college choice and a couple mentions here. Both are by the same author from The Clarion-Ledger, so they would count as one source even if they were SIGCOV. There are also pieces from team-specific blogs written by non-notable sportswriters such as this piece by a writing intern from Ole Miss Rebels on SI, this piece by a longtime team blogger from The Ole Miss Spirit, or this piece by an Ole Miss senior from The Rebel Walk. JTtheOG (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Georgia (U.S. state), and Mississippi. JTtheOG (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I kind of expected more coverage, since he seems to have had decent stats so far for Ole Miss (a big program). However, he is still young (only a sophomore) and it seems he's poised to be Ole Miss's top receiver next year (per this, albeit a FanSided blog), so there will almost certainly be more coverage of him in the near future. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. 57 catches for almost 900 yards and two tuddys is not a bad year at all, especially in the SEC. I was surprised as well. JTtheOG (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's modern sports journalism for you. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Like others, I was surprised that I couldn't find more coverage about the subject, but that is the way it goes sometimes. Draftify this for the time being as there should be more coverage at some point, it just isn't here now. Let'srun (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 900 receiving yards for Lee in 2024 at a major progam. That would make him a star at most programs, but Tre Harris is the Rebels No. 1 receiver and probably dominated the coverage. I did find some coverage for Lee and would expect there to be more. See [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Cbl62 (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one I found. Part of it is paywalled but it looks like SIGCOV from the part I can see. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the full version, which is probably SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the 1977 Ontario general election by riding

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

This is an overly and unnecessarily detailed WP:CONTENTFORK of 1977 Ontario general election, duplicating the results exactly but adding a mostly non-Wikilinked group of names. As a result, it fails the WP:NOT test of WP:GNG by being WP:NOTDATABASE. A merge/redirect is unnecessary since the information (sans candidate names) is already substantially presented at the election page and the title is unlikely to be a search term. I am nominating a group of similar by-riding Ontario provincial election result pages under the same rationale. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "detailed" riding-by-riding election results which list all the candidates names (which the main pages does not do) are a useful reference. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't address the WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:NOTDATABASE problems addressed in the nomination. Wikipedia is not a database of every candidate in every election. The articles for the elections themselves provide excellent encyclopedic treatments that provide sufficient detail. Users needing more can dig into the primary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging with parent articles solves the content fork issue. The point is that for people interested in elections having a list of candidates is useful and is also a common feature of election articles in Wikipedia. Not having a list of who actually ran would be a glaring omission. Would you even think of removing candidate names from say 2010 New York State Senate election? What about 1929 Chicago aldermanic election? Or 1907 Liverpool City Council election? Wellington Bay (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- "Users needing more can dig into the primary sources" - that's fine if they have Lexis-Nexus access. Otherwise, that information is unavailable on the web. Wellington Bay (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  In response to the WP:WHATABOUTX argument, I'm not proposing to delete any election pages, and issues with the content of those pages can be dealt with there. And by arguing Otherwise, that information is unavailable on the web, you've reiterated my own point that this article is functioning as a database -- something Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Honestly, what will be next? Articles for votes at polling stations? GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a reductio ad absurdum fallacious argument. Listing the actual names of candidates is a reasonable expectation in an article on an election. Poll-by-poll results are not. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The nominated articles are not the main articles on the elections. That would be 1977 Ontario general election etc., and no one is proposing to delete those. I am proposing to delete separate pages that are functioning as databases of candidates and results. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - So then merge the articles so that the main articles include candidate names (as they did previously before one editor added new tables without names). Wellington Bay (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Theres already an similar (but not completely the same) ongoing discussion that's taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Results of the 2023 Alberta general election, that people should be aware of. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge (but tidy up) - Candidates of the 2024 United Kingdom general election by constituency provides a useful template for presentation, given that vote figures in the main articles have been moved to more easily readable and sortable statistical tables as well as being shown in the articles for the individual constituencies.Raellerby (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, noting my previous comment on the other similar conversation. I think Ontario (in regards to other cnd provinces), is the only one which would qualify for stand alone articles of election results due to article size considerations of not having them (over 100-rows of electoral districts, with candidate names and vote results). - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that the question before us is not whether the information is useful or can't easily be found elsewhere, but whether the topics meet our inclusion guidelines, specifically WP:GNG and WP:NOTDATABASE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Subnational elections are a big deal, especially in federal entities, such as Canada. I think having articles like this are important to the coverage of these elections. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't address GNG and WP:NOT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear GNG fail, and the info here is already contained in other articles.

Noah ^💬 18:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. There is no compelling reason to keep candidate names off of Wikipedia. If consensus is to delete, I hope that this useful information can be preserved somewhere without too much trouble. Maybe move to draft so it can be copied to another wiki? Eluchil404 (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NOTDATABASE. Most stuff already covered in the main election articles. Procyon117 (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Most stuff" with the crucial exception of candidate names. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think this level of granularity for a 40 yr old election is needed. This isn't the election of JFK, it was the fourth? term for a premier that was running out of steam at that point. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of law enforcement agencies on Long Island

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

Also nominating:

These articles contain duplicated information from sections of List of law enforcement agencies in New York (state). It’s repetitive and unnecessary. Law enforcement in Westchester County and Law enforcement in New York City should also be deleted for the same reason. Any missing paragraph summaries can be copied from these articles to the state article or to Law enforcement in New York (state). - Joeal532 talk 20:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting list for the following topic: Organizations.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Lists, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Westchester and Long Island, keep NYC The first two are just items that can be noted on the county articles very easily, but the NYC article has to deal with numerous items just because of the complexity of the NYPD and other federal and state agencies and is a fine article in its current state. Nate • (chatter) 21:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — (leaning) — I’m definitely leaning delete, but I would second Nate in that NYC should be kept. WP:NLIST is actually quite forward in stating that “list of…” (and even “list of X of Y” as these articles are) should be be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I agree that there is some redundancy with these sorts of articles, but they can be handy. Regardless, the law enforcement side of Wikipedia is a personal project of mine, and while I agree that Westchester and Long Island are getting a bit redundant, etc, I do, however, feel that NYC, as the most populous city of the United States, and its large number of LEAs and LEOs (and a significant number of unique LEAs, at that) deserves to have his own list, even in the face of list of law enforcement agencies in New York (state). I say I am only 'leaning' delete, because if I can justify the existence of the NYC article, I’m assuming someone can justify Westchester/LI, and I’d be open to hearing their argument(s).
MWFwiki (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but keep the NYC article as per the discussion thread. I'm surprised by the number of red links. Bearian (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Joeal532 this AFD is not properly formatted as a bundled nomination and can't be closed as one. Please review WP:AFD for instructions multiple nominations and format this appropriately. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Contains duplicate content. But keep the NYC article. Drushrush (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as deletion does not solve the problem of duplicated content or an ugly article. A better solution is to rewrite the articles so that the content is county specific and the National and State level agencies are listed at the top level of the hierarchy, only, with merely a reference to there being a higher geographic level of agencies. In other instances where I have noticed duplicate articles about law enforcement in a county, the articles about the law enforcement agencies in that county have been merged into the geographic articles of where they operate. If these articles are not going to be kept, then I would suggest a Merge (or at least a redirect) of the Long Island article into the article about Long Island, where there is a section already. Also Merge (or redirect) the Westchester County into Westchester County, where there is already a section, too. Like others have also asked, I ask to Keep the New York City article separate, as it is a bit large to merge back into the New York City section on public safety, and other subarticles exist on related topics also exist, for that very large article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cameron Dewe. The NY state article is monstrously sized already. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of classical music composers by era

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

The long list uses no sources thus violating WP:V and has no inclusion criteria, essentially, the composers are chosen arbitrarily, thus going against WP:LISTCRITERIA. On top of it, the list is practically unusable, as the content is not searchable, so it is not possible to locate a composer unless one knows the dates of his life - but with this knowledge there is little use for a timeline. A reader of this AfD might try, for example to locate Cesar Cui as an exercise. The same Cesar Cui was part of The Five, but it is almost impossible to decipher from the chosen way of representation, as the pieces of timeline are split arbitrarily, thus creating false impression of periodic composers' mass extinctions, like the one in 1610 (section "Renaissance era"). As a result, The Five's lives are literally cut into pieces. We already have Lists of composers#Western classical period that are way more readable, so an issue of WP:CFORK also pops up. Викидим (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per WP:WDAFD. Reason: WP:SNOW due to little support. --Викидим (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Music. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Redirects to Lists of composers#Era have been reverted several times. Noting there has been discussion about how the timeline has limited functionality. – The Grid (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even if it had sources, this thing would still be an unencyclopedic mess. That and the impossibility of imposing inclusion criteria make deletion the only possible choice. I suppose such a chart could possibly be used in a much more limited way, say among a group of composers for whom inclusion criteria can be established, like The Five or Les Six. But even so, it wouldn't be encyclopedic. As it stands, on top of the reasons given by nominator, this would still qualify for deletion according to WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has been around forever, has had over 2 million views in less than a decade, so some people must find it useful. Unusually for a list, all the entries have linked articles, so references are very easily found. I'm not impressed by the other arguments in the nom, and would like to hear how deletion would actually improve the encyclopedia. Probably its a good thing to recognise Cesar Cui's distinct individuality for a change. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cesar Cui came into discussion in a trivial way: I had earnestly tried to search for him, and found the list unusable. One can try their favorite composer, or a random one. Викидим (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he's not there. He's a very minor figure (all but unknown in the Anglosphere), and probably shouldn't be - the list doesn't claim to be exhaustive. That's no reason to delete the thing. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two funny things here are: (1) Russian The Five (just like French Les Six) is an important part of the Western musical culture, so Cui is never left off the important composer's lists (even though he is likely to be the weakest one of the Five, a long period of rubbing shoulders with Modest Mussorgsky and Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov resulted in some of their gold dust rubbing onto him as well). He is therefore present in these diagrams, naturally. (2) Your (and initially mine) inability to find Cui in this mishmash of colored graphs, with no sorting or search capabilities, highlights my issue with this article: graphics is only useful if it is easier to read than plain text. This one isn't easy to read at all.

I am not denying the usefulness (and potential WP:verifiability) of the list of composers, graphic timelines, horizontal colored bars with composer's name on them. I have very limited, but IMHO grave issues with the particular way of presenting composers chosen in this article: for starters, as we both now know, there is no easy way to establish if a particular composer is in or out. Therefore, even if a WP:RS for this particular list can be found (I very much doubt it), WP:V is practically impossible due to the chosen way of presentation. Викидим (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be the job of categories. We don't need separate articles for this. Agletarang (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move: We could move this to be a part of the project vital articles for composers, so it wouldn't be WP:CIRC if it's in the same article. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikieditor662: Your initial comment is difficult to interpret. What do you mean by "we could move this to be a part of the project vital articles for composers"? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at WP:VA, specifically Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers#Western art music. This VA palcement sort of thing was suggested to me in the past for a different timeline. Does this clarify? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. Are you suggesting that the article only include composers whose articles have been listed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers#Western art music? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a direct relationship between these two lists : the Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers#Medieval and Renaissance section contains 26 names, while in the article being discussed the "Medieval" section contain 50 names, and "Renaissance" 62. With three overlapping entries, there is an apparent grand total of 109 (note that counting was done manually (there seems to be no easy way to quickly establish the precise count), so I may be of by 1 or 2. Incidentally, if we can agree on much shorter lists, the issue of WP:V becomes much easier to solve, finding multiple lists of about 100 influential composers of all times in the literature is trivial (off-topic: these short lists will not include an entry on Cui - but will mention him). Викидим (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve upon by adding more text. Someone went through a lot of work to create those charts. Would be a damn shame to delete it. Many incoming links would go broken too. I for one happen to find it very entertaining and educational. -- œ^™ 06:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook WP:HARDWORK argument. Come on. The backlinks can be fixed easily too. – The Grid (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah so what. That page lists every argument every heard in a deletion discussion. Doesn't make them all totally invalid. Everything should be taken on a case-by-case basis. -- œ^™ 09:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the topic has been addressed as a set in multiple reliable sources. Added a few very basic ones. Meets WP:NLIST. WP:V is not violated nor is the list indiscriminate. The inclusion criteria is based on sources, not an arbitrary decision. One can make that clearer in the intro or on the TP -Mushy Yank. 14:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Comment~~ I'm struggling to understand why a list of wiki-notable classical composers does not meet NLIST - any bibliographic dictionary of music is treating the set as a set, surely? What's the argument for deletion here? Verifiability is a content policy that is a good reason to remove content, but not to delete an entire article when large parts of it are indeed verifiable. I could see an argument to split this and move the charts into their respective lists, but again that's not a rationale for deletion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with such a list in general, as long as it is usable, has some criteria (which might be "every composer that already has an article" - this is not the case now), and some sources. However, we already have such List of classical composers - which is not this one. So, this is a duplicate that (1) is almost unusable (cannot be searched unlike the other one), (2) has no sources (the other one has hundreds), (3) has no criteria (it does not seem that any criteria was applied to select the entries), (4) missing important information (school, works, etc. are present in the other list). So, we can easily see the violation of not just WP:NLIST, but also MOS:LIST, WP:V, and WP:CFORK. Moving the timelines to other lists as illustrations might be IMHO an acceptable solution, as our readers are used to a lot of pictures that require them to squint in order to see the fine details. While doing the move, maybe we can also remove - unsearchable - hyperlinks that make very hard-to-read color combinations (cf. the Philippe Verdelot entry in List of classical music composers by era#Renaissance era) or simply use contrasting colors for the text on the bars (once the diagrams are split into different articles, a much better supply of pastel backgrounds is available for each one (cf. the perfectly readable List of classical music composers by era#Romantic era). Викидим (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are a rationale for deletion though. MOS compliance is important but never sufficient to remove an otherwise viable article. Non-notable entries are added to lists all the time - that doesn't make the scope suddenly nonviable. Fundamentally, meeting NLIST is not changed by the current state of the article, only by whether the scope as we choose to define it is treated as a topic by RS, and it is, in this case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don’t see any solid argument in favour of deletion, and pretty much all encyclopedias of classical music have a chart like this, so the ‘unencyclopedic’ point makes no sense. Mccapra (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Underhill, Staffordshire

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

Three of this article's five sources appear to Fail Verification, in that they don't reference the place at all. Which leaves a map, and a bus timetable. I can't see that these give this very unremarkable housing estate any Notability. KJP1 (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Scotlands Estate. I can find no evidence of "Underhill" being used to refer to a place in Essington parish, as claimed in the article. But it looks like it is used in the media as a synonym for Scotlands Estate in the immediately adjacent area of Wolverhampton, e.g. [21][22][23] Joe D (t) 13:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not seeing much point in merging this. Scotlands Estate and Scotlands appear to be duplicates, this article's title is misleading - it ought to be Underhill, Wolverhampton and the sources don't support the content. However, Underhill should be mentioned somewhere and a redirect made from its accurate title. More of a 'start again' exercise. Rupples (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a place any more, and when it was, it was Underhill farm, Cannock Road, Wolverhampton. This isn't some enormous historical place that we've entirely missed, as is Hilton Park; a vast sprawling estate to the north covering 4,650 acres (1,880 ha) in the 1860s, clearly shown on the old maps, that is also in history books, with nary a mention in Wikipedia all these years (c.f. Westcroft, Staffordshire (AfD discussion)). This is a farm whose sole record seems to be mentions as a farmer's address in pig breeding journals. The actual population centre, a kilometre and a bit away from the farm, was Bushbury, which we already have. Ironically, the first source in the article is actually about Bushbury, and this content is falsely sourced, there being no claim to any place called Underhill in the source (which, ironically, has information about Hilton Park on pages 235, 251, 488, and 666). I agree with Rupples. There's nothing that this can be corrected into that we don't already have, and this article is plain false. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of association football and futsal

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

Completely AI generated text, only uses a single source in all citations. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 08:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CROSSCAT. BilletsMauves^€500 13:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also per WP:CROSSCAT. No sigcov that actually covers this. Procyon117 (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BilletsMauves and Procyon117, I'm not exactly sure how CROSSCAT works, but are the pages in {{Comparison of football codes}} eligible for deletion as well? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, some of them, such as Comparison of Gaelic football and Australian rules football, are probably notable, since historical sources talk about how different they are, and in my opinion meets the "unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon" aspect of the policy. Procyon117 (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's late over here right now so can't speak for the others. Procyon117 (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some probably yes, others no. I second Procyon's comment overall. For example, Comparison of rugby league and rugby union and Comparison of Gaelic football and rugby union might be notable, as they have had significant interaction with each other. Meanwhile, Comparison of American football and rugby league looks like it falls under the WP:CROSSCAT rule. BilletsMauves^€500 19:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aer Lingus Flight 328

AfDs for this article:

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

I've declined a WP:G4 request on this—it can't be considered substantially identical to the page deleted in 2019—but the arguments from the 2019 deletion discussion still apply. There's nothing obvious to suggest that this is a viable Wikipedia topic. ‑ Iridescent 13:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ‑ Iridescent 13:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the previous deletion discussion. Still fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT, no sign of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE or WP:LASTING effects. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree with Rosbif73. This article fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline. UdexTG^{[talk page]} 14:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Suggest immediate Rename to Plane lands in barley field~~ or Delete as lacking WP:SIGCOV. Serial (speculates here) 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ : Aircraft iced over, nothing terribly notable. No loss of life other than the fireman, no changes in legislation or aircraft design as a result of the accident. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you voting to keep or delete the article? Your comment seems kind of contradictory. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sorry, clicked on the wrong button. Oaktree b (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Ireland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not a notable event, fails WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Short_360#Accidents_and_incidents or Aer_Lingus#Accidents_and_incidents (both of which are WP:AIRCRASH-SECTIONs which contain largely the same text). As WP:ATD-R. Or, failing that, simply delete (per the outcome of the previous AfD and WP:NEVENT.) Otherwise, in all honesty, the event here barely meets the WP:PLANECRASH criteria for "when to add mention of aircraft accidents to articles about [..] airlines and aircraft type articles". Not to mention the criteria for a standalone article.... Guliolopez (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to any of the two lists of accidents suggested by Guliolopez, as this accident is WP:ROUTINE. --Викидим (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I would say that some of the secondary coverage found is somewhat weak regarding in-depth coverage but I think that they at least provide significant and continued coverage of the event beyond 1986. There is some evidence of lasting effects with Aer Lingus reportedly implementing the recommendations cast by the AAIB.^[6] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There were two (very minor) flurries of news: one immediately after the accident, one upon completion of investigation. The only coverage above the local level appears to be similar to press releases (cf. RTE). Викидим (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/march-2023/first-lady-of-lords/
^ https://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1067634/let-s-play-it-by-ear
^ https://www.kentcricket.co.uk/news/ten-more-kent-women-cap-recipients-announced/
^ https://www.espncricinfo.com/on-this-day/cricket-events/December/5
^ https://bnl.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/BermudaNP17/id/35338/
^
- Gould, Jim; Rudman, Jim; Gregory, Clive; Zucchi, Louise; Downing, Mark; Peters, Carole; Clarke, Heather; Kapur, Updesh (1 February 1986). "Miracle escape of Shuttle Echo Mike". Leicester Mercury. Leicester, Leicestershire, England. p. 1. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.
- Gould, Jim; Rudman, Jim; Gregory, Clive; Zucchi, Louise; Downing, Mark; Peters, Carole; Clarke, Heather; Kapur, Updesh (1 February 1986). "Miracle escape of Shuttle Echo Mike". Leicester Mercury. Leicester, Leicestershire, England. p. 11. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via British Newspaper Archive.
- Byrne, Gerry (2 February 1986). "'Wind shear' may have caused Aer Lingus crash". Sunday Tribune. p. 3. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via British Newspaper Archive.
- "Aer Lingus crash: first report". Long Eaton Advertiser. Long Eaton, Derbyshire, England. 9 May 1986. p. 3. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.
- "Aer Lingus crash: 'The pilots were heroes'". Nottingham Evening Post. Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, England. 20 January 1988. p. 1. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.
- Kelly, Andrew (20 January 1988). "Aer Lingus Plane Crash". RTÉ. Retrieved 18 January 2025.
- Webster, Louise (21 January 1988). "Plane crash probe | Villagers call for quicker inquiries". Evening Telegraph. Derby, Derbyshire, England. p. 7. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.

Delete and possibly WP:SALT per WP:NOTNEWS, the sources above are from like 30 years old and above thus failing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and has no WP:LASTING effect, 1 injuries does not help either. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NTEMP, if there was contemporary significant coverage, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Besides, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE does not give a minimum amount of duration for a subject to pass WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and two years is already more than enough to establish such notability. It's unreasonable to expect a topic to receive ongoing coverage for more than 30 years. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:NOTNEWS,

In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Even when citing recent news articles as sources, ensure the Wikipedia articles themselves are not:
Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information.

News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. 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 (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events). Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.

Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)

Celebrity gossip and diaries. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest.

Uptime tracking. Services go down all the time. Readers are not expected to check Wikipedia articles to verify service outages. For web services, readers have ample automatic options for that purpose. For meatspace services, readers should be reaching out to the people who manage the service. Accordingly, editors should not manually edit service status updates into articles as if the articles are used for that purpose. Major outages may be notable on a case-by-case basis, especially when they have a notable cause, but the vast majority of outages simply are not notable.

ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 18:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What point are you trying to make? Most of the sources are not routine nor "first-hand news reports on breaking stories". Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This was a rough landing rather than a crash and no-one had serious injuries, just scratches and bruises (a fireman crashed while driving to the scene, not part of the aircraft event itself). Not significant enough to warrant entry in any encyclopaedia that takes itself seriously.

“

The aircraft was relatively undamaged. – Assessment by the article itself!

”

The writing is very poor and of insufficient standard, suggesting that the broken English is a second language. Spideog (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum/clarification: While the article says in the lead "One serious injury was reported from a fireman", this injury occurred while the fireman was driving to the scene. Spideog (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just note that the aircraft was declared a hull loss since the left wing detached from the fuselage. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions no hull loss or wing detachment but states, "the aircraft was relatively undamaged." The supporting citation is a report by the Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives, which states that "the aircraft was relatively undamaged". Spideog (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know where the Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives got its sources since:

The Leicester Mercury states that the aircraft crashed in a ploughed field, and came to rest with one wing ripped off and the other badly mauled in trees on the edge of the Castle Donington race circuit.
The Long Eaton Advertiser states that The aircraft sustained damage to the undercarriage, nose, wings and propellers...
And more specifically, the Aviation Safety Network precises that the aircraft was destroyed; written off.

In this case, I wouldn't consider BAAA to be reliable since the images of the wreckage clearly show the wing detached and more importantly, the sources seem to verify that information, hence its claim that the aircraft was "relatively undamaged" seems to be completely untrue. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it was written off. The accident made Flight 328 the second hull-loss accident of a Shorts 360, after the 1985 CAAC accident. The Shorts 360 had a total of 100 fatalities, and 55 occurrences in the ASN database. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 15:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Long Eaton Advertiser states that "The aircraft sustained damage" but does not specify either scratched paint or destroyed aircraft, so that does not help us.

The Aviation Safety Network is not an official institution but is compiled by a self-described "user community", so that source carries inconclusive weight.

The Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives in Geneva is, on the other hand, the work of an authoritative long-standing aircraft accidents professional and states the aircraft was "relatively undamaged".

You say "I wouldn't consider BAAA to be reliable" but that is a personal opinion, as is your dismissive assessment of the Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives.

But this is a sideshow conversation relative to the identifiable policy considerations in support of deletion argued above. Spideog (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say BAAA was unreliable, I only stated that In this case, I wouldn't consider BAAA to be reliable. For the most part, the Aviation Safety Network isn't user-generated. It is only user generated if the entry itself states that one can edit the entry directly, and there is a long-standing consensus that it is reliable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I verified the BAAA source and it states that The cockpit and passenger cabin were relatively undamaged and there was no fire. This is why one should not rely on content from a Wikipedia article when making an argument. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the above or redirect to Shorts 360#Accidents and incidents – The accident itself fails the notability for events. While the accident resulted in a hull loss, the second of that aircraft type after an accident in 1985, it still fails Wikipedia:GNG. There is a good reason to why this article was nominated for deletion, as per what Iridescent said, I've declined a WP:G4 request on this—it can't be considered substantially identical to the page deleted in 2019—but the arguments from the 2019 deletion discussion still apply. There's nothing obvious to suggest that this is a viable Wikipedia topic. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 15:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search of the British Newspaper Archive - I can't access the articles - shows continuing coverage of the incident over two years later (Leicester Mercury, 21 January 1988, about the recommendation to change the airframe to prevent ice buildup) along with continuing coverage throughout the weeks after the incident and continued mentions later in time. Also led to airframe-related safety changes. SportingFlyer T·C 18:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the delete !votes are mistaken. This clearly passes WP:GNG - there's significant coverage of this incident in a Singapore newspaper in 1986 that is currently in the article. While everyone survived and the plane was just a Short 360, it was still clearly worthy of international press. Furthermore, the accident continued to be covered locally for weeks and was mentioned years later as shown by the British Newspaper Archive, so the WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is easily met. Since wasn't in the news for just a few cycle so isn't WP:NOTNEWS and passes the WP:NEVENT criteria. It also clearly had WP:LASTING impacts on the design of the airframe. WP:PLANECRASH specifically suggests it is not to be used in AfDs and is met anyways since this was? may have been? a hull loss and in any case resulted in changes to the airframe and icing safety, and WP:ROUTINE is for run of the mill stories which this isn't. None of the arguments for deletion actually work here. SportingFlyer T·C 18:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: per SportingFlyer. According to the British Newspaper Archives, there is continuing newspaper mentions of the accident. There are also two sources in the Google News Archive and at least 10 sources in Newspapers.com, which all add to the notability of the article. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 12:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TheNuggeteer, you might usefully visit the article's talk page and answer some of the points raised there? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, will fix. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 03:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. See the article's Talk page. There appear to be more sources out there than have been added to the article, and despite what's in the body of the article, it appears the crash actually was significant. Aviationwikiflight might or might not get around to adding them to the article. I've added an RTÉ News report which aired when the accident investigation report was released, which included video of the aftermath of the crash, showing substantial damage - one wing appears to have been broken off, and both are damaged, as is the fuselage. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article definitely needs improvement and isn't a reliable source for gauging the noteworthiness of the crash. The RTÉ News report on the crash that Bastun referenced clearly shows that it was a significant incident and mentions that it "advanced knowledge of de-icing equipment in the industry". Cashew.wheel (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grafa

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

advert of a nn business. Refs are usual PR stuff --Altenmann >talk 06:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, Companies, Technology, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The SMH reference seems to meet WP:ORGCRIT, but everything else is routine coverage or unreliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Masport

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

The sources do not show that this company is notable for an article Patre23 (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New Zealand. Patre23 (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Papers Past has 28,143 hits for "Masport" of which 2761 are classified as neither advertisements or illustrations. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the best known brands in New Zealand. This article, which goes into the company history, tells us that they held 50% of the lawnmower market in 2008; not bad post-deregulation. And given that their Mount Wellington foundry went into receivership in 2018, there is supposedly quite a bit that needs adding. Schwede 66 18:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Masport Foundries" is not Masport: [24] Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yours is a good ref with a significant fact to be added to the article. --Altenmann >talk 23:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC) -- P.S. added, in proper context. --Altenmann >talk 00:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems a notable NZ brand. I added some non-PR refs from the internets. --Altenmann >talk 00:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's hard rummaging through all the routine coverage and press releases, but there seems to be enough coverage for NORG: [25], [26], [27] Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient notability. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Tech Square

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

The sources do not show that this startup tech company is notable for an article Patre23 (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Computing, Software, and Nigeria. Patre23 (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are obviously press releases; they were published 2-3 days ago and two of the websites have the same text. WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish WP:ORGCRIT here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources on the page are churnalism and I cannot find anything online that meets WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Pillai

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

This article sources do not show that its subject is notable for an article Patre23 (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Patre23 (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
del, advert, all refs are PG. --Altenmann >talk 06:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack sig cov. in reliable sources and some reference cited in article are primary. Fails WP:GNG or may be created for promotional use TheSlumPanda (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable businessperson. Lacks significant coverage in secondary sources. Zuck28 (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article and reads as resume. Fails WP:NBIO. This page on subject does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oluseyi Akindeinde

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

Subject fails GNG. The sources are either a promotion piece or not independent (info from the subject) or the sources are not reliable. Cassiopeia talk 05:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Cassiopeia talk 05:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George de Meo

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

Tagged for notability and sourcing since 2017. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
del no evidence of notability. --Altenmann >talk 04:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ quite a bit of coverage here [28] [29] [30] [31], for his weapons dealing was "the single most important source of weapons" of The Troubles, quite the claim to notability as evidenced by sigcov. That is without looking into newsy/other book sources (if you are unsatisfied by the sources I have provided or want me to incorporate them into the article, please ping me I will attempt to find more). PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also several pages of coverage in A Secret History of the IRA (though that might be moreso on Harrison). PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PARAKANYAA Thank you for finding these. Anything you are willing to do to improve the article is much appreciated.4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Changing vote since, while notable, everything he is notable for is summed up at Provisional Irish Republican Army arms importation. ATM I do not see the content for a split, and since his notability is tied up in so many other people I think this is best for now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Celts (1978 TV series)

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

Fails WP:GNG. All citations are just scripts and schedules DonaldD23 talk to me 03:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, United Kingdom, and Wales. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Davies, Bernard (1975-06-09). "One Man's Television". Broadcast. No. 814. p. 19. ProQuest 1776921097.
  The review provides about 589 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "Last week's 'Chronicle' programme, The Celts (BBC 2, Wednesday), seemed to me to adorn its topic rather more than to explain it. Indeed, although it was packed full of information, and although the Heavy Brigade of archaeology—Professor Stuart Piggott and others—moved through it in echelon of squadrons, the programme was, as it were, inefficiently informative; the information was, no doubt, all there, but it did not come across. At least, here is one viewer—anxious to be informed, eager for enlightenment—who found at the end of the program-me that he had learned little new."
  The review notes: "Not, then, a documentary in the educational nuts-and-bolts style of, say, an Open University programme on topology (whatever that is), but a sort of reflective essay in the style of Montaigne or—more appropriately—Haz-litt, in which the author explores a theme from a personal standpoint; a theme which he adorns rather than explains. 'The Celts' conveyed a sense of enthusiasm for its subject which, surely, is a legitimate and important function of documentary. One may criticise it, unfairly, because it did not approach its subject in the style of a school or university textbook; one may criticise it, less unfairly, because the manner sometimes got in the way of the matter; one must, however, acknowledge the rare pleasure conferred by 'The Celts' as a creative programme, and the remarkable way in which it re-sensitised one's somewhat atrophied taste-buds to the achievements of Celtic peoples."
2. Brayfield, Celia (1975-05-28). "Programme guide compiled by Celia Brayfield". Evening Standard. ProQuest 2712585962. Archived from the original on 2025-01-18. Retrieved 2025-01-18 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "The Celts. After Saturday's soccer international we in London hardly need to ask "Who were the Celts?" But this series is almost invariably fascinating and this piece of archaeological detective work should be well worth overcoming our prejudices to see. David Parry-Jones finds the Celts a vain lot—inclined to do battle with the Romans without helmets for fear of spoiling their coiffures. They were also, it seems, widespread throughout Europe notorious drunks, addicted to human sacrifice, ruled by wild-eyed Druids and capable of producing the finest art forms of any early European people."
3. Day-Lewis, Sean (1975-05-29). "Television: Girl of compassion in Vietnam war". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2025-01-18. Retrieved 2025-01-18 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "Commentary is unavoidable in television archaeology, but why David Parry-Jones had to compete with a battery of symphony orchestras and at least one choir in the sound track of J. Mervyn Williams's history of The Celts (BBC-2) I cannot imagine. In truth this was not among best-organised issues of "Chronicle." It was untidy in minor matters like the identification of speakers and left the major issue of where the Celts originated in a kind of Celtic twilight somewhere the plains of Hungary. The principal achievement was to reinforce the prejudices of those who dislike the Celts. One Anne Ross declared that they had lost Maiden Castle in Dorset to the Romans through drink and because they were better at making a noise than fighting. The script of Emyr Humphreys was a bit free with its generalisations."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Celts to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Either this series was not made in 1978, or the three reviews found by Cunard are not about this series. I'm going to take some time to work out which it is, and if, whenever it was made and wherever it was shown, it is notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: - The article claims that the series was only shown in Wales, yet the two newspapers in particular- the (London) Evening Standard and the Daily Telegraph- are based in England. Knowing what I know about the Anglo-centricity of the media based there, it's unlikely that even the Telegraph (distributed UK-wide) would have reviewed a Wales-only series.

Also, they appear to refer to a single episode of a series/strand/slot called "Chronicle", which references to the four-part "Celts" don't mention. Yet one of the people mentioned in their reviews (David Parry-Jones) is also linked to the 1978 series.

My guess- and to be clear I'm not claiming this *is* anything other than a guess!- is that the 1978 series was possibly either a more ambitious standalone take on the same premise inspired by the single-episode 1975 version or an otherwise unrelated series that had the same name because it was about The Celts by people who knew about the Celts.

(I should also make clear that while I "created" this article, that was only by moving existing content from The Celts (1987 TV series) and done in order to keep the two apparently-unrelated (and incorrectly combined) series separate. That said, I wouldn't have done so if I didn't feel the 1978 series was most likely notable enough to warrant an article). Ubcule (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DonaldD23: - The scripts were apparently deemed notable enough by the National Library of Wales to have been archived by them in the first place. Ubcule (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with the notability requirements of Wikipedia, which states that 3rd party sources are needed. Scripts are primary sources. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Donaldd23: - That's fine, because the BBC scripts themselves aren't what's being cited there. (Indeed, their content- as far as I can tell- isn't even accessible via the link given nor available online).

The references themselves are the metadata record from the National Library of Wales- i.e. the aforementioned third party- describing an artifact they hold, i.e. the physical scripts.

That's not the same thing, and as such it arguably constitutes a demonstration of sufficient notability from a reputable third party.

Ubcule (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think being archived in a national library is an indication of notability in itself. National libraries are usually libraries of legal deposit (they hold everything published in the country), and they also archive unpublished material, ephemera, maps, etc, as part of their purpose of preserving the literature and culture of the nation. Not everything they hold is individually notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for catching the difference in years, @RebeccaGreen. I found these sources by searching for "The Celts" and "David Parry-Jones" so thought it was the same television series. I am striking my support for retention for now. I had added a "Reception" section to the article. I am saving the article content I had added here:

Extended content

The Celts is a 1975 television series produced by BBC2.

Reception

Bernard Davies of Broadcast penned a mostly negative review of the show. He said it "adorn[ed] its topic rather more than to explain it" and "inefficiently informative". He praised it for "the remarkable way in which it re-sensitised one's somewhat atrophied taste-buds to the achievements of Celtic peoples".^[1] The Evening Standard television critic Celia Brayfield praised the show as "almost invariably fascinating" and said "this piece of archaeological detective work should be well worth overcoming our prejudices to see".^[2] The Daily Telegraph's Sean Day-Lewis called the programme disorganised and found it "untidy in minor matters like the identification of speakers and left the major issue of where the Celts originated in a kind of Celtic twilight somewhere the plains of Hungary". He thought Emyr Humphreys's script was "a bit free with its generalisations".^[3]

References

^ Davies, Bernard (1975-06-09). "One Man's Television". Broadcast. No. 814. p. 19. ProQuest 1776921097.
^ Brayfield, Celia (1975-05-28). "Programme guide compiled by Celia Brayfield". Evening Standard. ProQuest 2712585962. Archived from the original on 2025-01-18. Retrieved 2025-01-18 – via Newspapers.com.
^ Day-Lewis, Sean (1975-05-29). "Television: Girl of compassion in Vietnam war". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2025-01-18. Retrieved 2025-01-18 – via Newspapers.com.

The content can be used to create The Celts (1975 TV series). To avoid further confusing the situation, I recommend waiting for this AfD to close before creating any separate article.

Cunard (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: - Please see my comment above as it covers a couple of important points.

Firstly, it goes into more detail about why the single-episode 1975 "Celts" is most likely *not* the same as the four-part 1978 one- despite the involvement of the same people- and reviews for the former should not be associated with the latter.

Secondly, I mentioned this in passing in the same comment, but to make the point more clearly here... the review extracts you posted *themselves* strongly imply that the 1975 "The Celts" was *not* a "series" as your putative article states- nor even a standalone programme- but rather a single episode of an existing series or strand called "Chronicle":

(1) "Last week's 'Chronicle' programme, The Celts (BBC 2, Wednesday), seemed to me..."

(2) Although omitted by yourself, the original programme schedule you quoted from actually says

"8.0 CHRONICLE: The Celts. After Saturday's soccer international we in London..."

Note the general format used by the listing, with the time followed by the main programme title in capitalised bold text, followed by (where applicable) that week's particular episode or subject in regular text.

(3) "...J. Mervyn Williams's history of The Celts (BBC-2) I cannot imagine. In truth this was not among best-organised issues of "Chronicle.""

The "Chronicle" referred to is almost certainly this series which ran from 1966 to 1991.

As such, it's unlikely that this one particular episode would warrant its own article. Ubcule (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubcule:, @Cunard: - I notice that Chronicle (British TV programme) has no entries at all for 1975 in the table of episodes. This program, and the reviews as references, could be added there. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the four-part 1978 series doesn't warrant an article of its own, I'd be open to suggestions about where it would best be redirected or pointed to since- as I mentioned above- my main aim in moving the content was to avoid conflating that series (and the content written about it) with the unrelated 1987 series of the same name. Ubcule (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to confuse the issue even more, I have found a 'TV Spotlight' column from 1976 in the Chester Chronicle which says "A LOOK at the old pre - Christian beliefs of the Celts can be seen the third programme in the series called ‘Y Celtiaid’ (The Celts) which will be shown on BBC Wales Television on Sunday. The druids will be discussed together with references to human sacrifice, the sacred oak of the Celts and lakes which were thought to be gateways to the other world. Taking part in the programme will be Professor Proinsias MacCana Dublin University and Professor Stuart Piggott Professor Archaeology at Edinburgh University the author of a book entitled ‘The Druids ’. Is this the same series? Was it made and shown before 1978? Is it yet another series called The Celts?

I am not finding more about a series shown in 1978 - just TV listings and one short 'coming soon' column which reads like a producer's summary, not a review. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is an interesting relisting as there is plenty of discussion here but no actual "votes" here on what should happen with this article aside from the nominator. If the sources you are finding are for a different program with a similar or the same name, perhaps this article should be deleted and a new article should be written on the program/series that does have sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Society for the Defence of Palestinian Nation

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

Organization is not notable. Page is also poorly translated and extremely antisemitic, peddling the Zionist Occupied Government conspiracy theory as fact, among other things Pyramids09 (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Iran, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, this organization is likely notable, I've been able to find significant coverage, a quick search can lead to [32] and [33] in addition, it appears the organization is rather significant in Iranian politics, since both Hossein Amirabdollahian and Zahra Mostafavi Khomeini seem to have had affiliation with the organization. There's probably sources that aren't in English that could be used as well. The main issue of the article is how it is written, this article certainly does have brazen WP:NPOV issues, but that is something that can and should be fixed. I think maybe we could Draftify the article until these issues are fixed if necessary. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing stance to Strong Keep. -Samoht27 (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The propaganda of the Iranian medieval regime is well-known and does not need promotion on Wikipedia. If spreading chaos in the Middle East is considered defending the Palestinian cause, then indeed, the Palestinians might need it! Valorthal77 (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly a notable organization, from a quick search seems to be a fairly major organization in Iran, organizing mass protests, international conferences, running a publishing house, etc.. The WP:IDONTLIKEIT argumentation in this AfD debate don't hold up. --Soman (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Right now, participants' opinion is divided. If the only problem is NPOV, that can be corrected through editing. The question is whether or not this subject is notable as demonstrated by sources so both those editors seeking to Keep and those advocating Deletion should be focusing on that aspect and not on whether the current content is appropriate for the project.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleethorpes Town F.C. (1901)

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

Local club without significant, non-routine coverage. All we have are match reports, mostly from very local sources, which are primary sources, not the required secondary sources needed to meet WP:GNG. Fram (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Football, and England. Fram (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: am biased as I created it, but helps to avoid confusion with other Cleethorpses, and they did get quite deep in the FA qualifying rounds.

Unfortunately am stuck with local sources because the British Newspaper Archive is no longer available to editors. There are long-standing stub pages extant for clubs of a similar stamp who did not have such good Cup runs. We probably need a definition of Notable for football, but note that the current Cleethorpes Town has not lasted as long a period as this one, plays at a lower level, and has been less successful in the FA Cup. Would it not be recency bias to have the current one but not a predecessor? In Vitrio (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Fram (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's relevant in this case - other stuff is evidence that a long run of FA Cup qualifying appearances has long been considered Notable and it does not seem to have been controversial. Especially as the club's run in 1919–20 made them one of the last 90 clubs in the competition, i.e. equivalent of Second Round Proper nowadays. There is not a page for the 1919–20 Qualifying Rounds yet, but in the 1920–21 FA Cup qualifying rounds page, every club reaching that particular stage has its own entry, so if notable in 1920, why not 1919? In Vitrio (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having an article doesn't necessarily mean being notable, just that perhaps no one has checked thoroughly. That's what "otherstuffexists" basically means, you are arguing that other articles are notable or that other similar articles about less notable subjects exist, but you aren't arguing how you will resolve the lack of secondary sources which means that this topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. We judge articles on AfD based on policies and guidelines, not on other articles. Fram (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that in EVERY other instance, for a decade, teams which have reached this stage have either been accepted as Notable or nobody has even thought to challenge their notability. Hence all their pages are still standing. I don't get why the exception for this one side. That I cannot find more sources is more down to my access than anything else, and given a start I'd think others could find more. In Vitrio (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It has three local newspapers in addition to at least two books of specialized literature covering the content. Considering the club existed until the late 1940s, isn't that enough? Svartner (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The books are about Grimsby Town FC, not about Cleethorpes FC. Fram (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't really see any problem with the sourcing as a quick search of the British Newspaper Archives brings up more than just local coverage and merging this into one of the other Cleethorpes Town articles doesn't really make sense, but at worst merge to the Cleethorpes Town F.C. (1884) article. SportingFlyer T·C 06:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add some of the non-local coverage please? Giant Snowman 08:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't have access to the British Newspaper Archive apart from the search. Just trying to confirm it's notable, not improve it. SportingFlyer T·C 23:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the "vibes of notability" comment in the relist - sources do exist and can be found, I just don't have access. SportingFlyer T·C 18:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep—If additional sources, as described above can be added to the article, I'll support keeping it more wholeheartedly. Anwegmann (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We seem to be operating on the vibes of notability more than the kinds of keep !votes that would establish consensus with this level of participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Fram. Could you describe the content to me in the first two sources: "Sport & play" and "The football field". I'm not expecting much from the first, as this looks like it would be nothing more than an announcement, but otherwise I'd be surprised if the second source, citing the club's change of name, hasn't included some coverage of the past few years of the club's history. You have explicitly stated there is only match reports, so which matches are these first two sources reporting on? Could you also explain to me how these WP:TIER3 sources are primary, rather than secondary sources that lack independence from the subject? If these are indeed secondary sources, what is the involvement with the subject, based on the content, that excludes them from SIGCOV? I'm otherwise torn on this, at present in the article there is almost certainly not enough for GNG (although, unable to verify this), and from searching through some books there was only passing coverage. I'd expect a lot more coverage from a club in involved in the early history of English football, but I also don't have access to BNA either. CNC (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PRIMARY: "For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources." Things like match reports are eyewitness accounts of a very recent event, not what is described in WP:SECONDARY: "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."- I have no direct access to the sources here, but they look like match reports or recent sporting news overviews, not indepth secondary sources about the club and its history. In Vitrio (article creator) is rather thorough (which is a good thing), if the second source had more indepth info and background about the first few years of the club beyond the namechange, I'm sure it would have been included. Fram (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Have now been able to see the relevant snippet of the source about the name change[34], and it's a small local announcement about the playing field having sustained damage, and the namechange is just a parenthesis: "Cleethorpes Town (late St. Peter's) Football Club", so no, it has no coverage at all of the club's history. Fram (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- One issue is you are not going to get ANY secondary sources for (within a rounding error) ANY football club in the first part of the 20th century. There was no football literature outside of the football annuals, which are not readily available. And any retrospecitves or club profiles are only going to be in newspapers. The British Library's Football Compendium lists only FIFTEEN general works for the first half of the 20th century - and that includes a thesis, two general sport books with chapters on football, and two books on football in PoW camps in World War 1. Even the biggest club of the 1930s (Arsenal) did not have a single book about them in period.
But it goes back again to the point I made about Notability and recency bias. You're not going to get secondary sources about teams that are unambiguously Notable because there's not going to be a market. The wikipedia guidelines on sources simply do not work going this far back because the media environment was very different. And LITERALLY EVERY OTHER CLUB at this stage in the competition in this period has an entry, some up for a decade, and have NEVER been challenged. I question why Fram is only challenging this particular one. Not the first time Fram has challenged one of the articles I've put up - and nobody else ever has. In Vitrio (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"You're not going to get secondary sources about teams that are unambiguously Notable": if you don't have secondary sources, then they are unambiguously not notable, as it states there (bold in original): "Sources" should be secondary sources. Fram (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In which case you're wiping out ALL of football before the Second World War. Unless you count the annuals and I don't have access to them. It took until about 2018 for anyone to provide a decent secondary source for the Clapham Rovers and they were FA Cup winners. There still are none for Scottish Cup finalists like Renton or Clydesdale.

The very fact that football does not have a notability guideline shows that strict policy does not work. Otherwise it would have been a piece of cake to draft one up. One has to take it in context and in this context it is bizarre to single out one club. You haven't explained why you are only nominating this one and not every other, more obscure, club whose article has been around for a decade (I give FC Alemannia 1897 Karlsruhe or Colne Town as examples). Why is THIS ONE not Notable but the others ARE? The point about others being obviously Notable is that it encourages research into those overlooked. You're seeking to stop all that. I don't get it.

And indeed note the paradox. If this one gets deleted, why not nominate every single other club who got to the last 90 of the Cup? Because a fortiori they are not Notable either. But I've got all the drafts, so I could approach a friendly publisher, put out a book, and then there is a secondary source. Bingo. It's not logical to decree that e.g. W.O.A.C. are Notable because someone has put them in a book but Stafford Road are not because nobody has yet. They were both the same stature and notoriety in period. In Vitrio (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's how notability on Wikipedia works. If X gets the secondary sources, but equally important or more so Y doesn't, then X is notable and Y isn't. We aren't here to second-guess the sources and why they choose to include one and exclude the other, and we aren't here to write histories for subjects no reliable source so far has bothered to do this. If this means unequal treatment or your favourite subject not getting a Wikipedia article, then so be it. Fram (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People HAVE written about Cleethorpes Town in the context of individual players' careers. There may be other sources of which I am unaware and people might use those to add in. It's not a favourite subject, by the way, never even been to Cleethorpes, but it was stumbling across something that made me realize that this was a different club from the other two Cleethorpes Towns, so needed to be split out, and having the page avoids confusion. Especially given the 1901 iteration did get to the equivalent of the FA Cup second round. As I've said, there are many clubs with less good sources and records whose pages have been up for years and nobody has challenged them. Because nobody doubts their Notability. In Vitrio (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This might be an unusual comment but we need a source analysis here if the nominator is seeking deletion (or an ATD?) becauae closers base their outcome on the arguments made and so far there is a consensus to Keep this article. The OP has said that general comments about the unsatisfactory nature of the sources but a detailed list might help justify a deletion if that is your goal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What´s the point of listing all sources individually and repeating "match report", "passing mention" 20 times? Not a single source which is indepth, not primary, and about the subject, has been presented. The closer should check if keep arguments are based on policy, not put an unnecessary extra burden on the nominator for no discernible benefit. Fram (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to buy me a subscription to the British Newspaper Archive? SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give the newspapers, dates and titles of the 2 or 3 articles which seem the most promising? Fram (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that there are over 2,000 hits between 1900 and 1949 alone, some of which are about town planning but most are about the football team. That includes this short list:

- Cleethorpes Town in the Final, Hull Daily Mail, 1911

- 12 January 1911, Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer

- 14 September 1906, Grimsby News

- Lincolnshire Cup, 24 November 1909, Sheffield Independent

- Cleethorpes v Scunthorpe TII, 23 March 1928, Grimsby News

- Horncastle and District Cup, 22 March 1911, Skegness News

- Boston Town Try Again, 9 May 1914, Boston Guardian

- Protest deferred, 30 October 1919, Sheffield Independent

I'm not sure if any of them would fall under our modern definition of WP:GNG, but this club was clearly consistently covered by regional papers at the time they were in existence. SportingFlyer T·C 00:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble with source analysis, as I've said above, is secondary sources in this era just do not exist, and the sources for most of the articles on most of the clubs which did not make it past World War 2 are primary. (Indeed in many cases the secondary sources are inaccurate - just look at the myths surrounding Arbroath 36–0 Bon Accord.) There may be some more recently (e.g. their Amateur Cup results are in a book from 2006), and I've set out a load in relation to the club's players, but I don't have access to everything, perhaps Lincolnshire football historians do. That I cannot find them does not mean the club is not notable. In context a club which makes the equivalent of the 2nd round of the FA Cup today is axiomatically notable.

Frankly, if this one is deleted, then you may as well delete basically every article of every football club that went bust before about 1945. I can't see how this helps wikipedia at all. In Vitrio (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FAIRR Initiative

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

This organisation fails WP:NORG. Sources are none other than routine coverage. GTrang (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : While the article is basically an ad and perhaps needs a total rewrite, I don't think sources are an issue. See [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. I can't vouch for the quality of all these sources, but these were just the first things I found after hardly any searching. The coverage seems far beyond routine. — Anonymous 04:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these sources were created by the org, and the rest are churnalism in trade publications (WP:TRADES) based on press releases. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Animal, Organizations, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There might be enough coverage to meet WP:NORG. Reuters, FT are the best I could find; there's a lot of less significant coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hyman

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

Unreferenced BLP. Tagged for sourcing issues since 2019. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- Amendement to original rationale: Also should be deleted under criteria 9 of WP:DEL-REASON as an unsourced BLP which is external to notability policies including SNGs. Fails our policy on verification at WP:BLP. 4meter4 (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment. Footnotes to sources raised in the AfD have been added, so this is no longer an unsourced BLP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that the subject is unlikely to pass WP:GNG, but I think they probably pass WP:AUTHOR for their book The Reluctant Metrosexual: Dispatches from an Almost Hip Life. I found reviews in the New York Times [42] and the Washington Post [43], and there are several other usable reviews referenced here [44] although frustratingly I wasn't able to find any of those originals from 2004. Their book is also cited or mentioned in probably a dozen academic books and journal articles, although admittedly not in any great detail. Together I think that's probably enough for a WP:AUTHOR pass. MCE89 (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there is a pass of WP:AUTHOR per MCE89 with multiple full-length reviews of his book in reliable, independent sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Dclemens1971 and MCE89 I would feel a lot better about this if those sources had biographical content but they don't other than perfunctory coverage. The sources are about the book rather than the author. Fundamentally we don't have materials supporting a biography page. Given that it is only a single work, wouldn't this be better repurposed into an article on that one book? This would seem to be a better approach per the spirit of WP:Verifiability. We could always recreate a page on the author if and when a second notable work is created by the subject. We really can only create articles based on the available sources. Otherwise we are fundamentally allowing an unsourced BLP article page which I thought was a big no no on wikipedia.4meter4 (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCREATIVE is clear that "Such a person is notable if:... The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews..." There's no requirement for biographical content in such reviews. Biographical content can be added from other sources, but the test of notability is met by what MCE89 identified. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 I get that, but that is not the cogent policy here. WP:BLPSOURCES external to notability policy but equally important is at play here. We could literally blank the page at present because its unsourced under WP:BURDEN and WP:BLPSOURCES policy. That's a problem relevant to AFD that goes beyond notability criteria. At some level we have to consider the practical application of all of our policies. Not just WP:SNG language. Policies don't exist in a vacuum.4meter4 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and blank the page in that case; that's a content issue. AfD isn't for content issues, it's for notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dclemens1971 To do so in the middle of an AFD would be WP:DISRUPTIVE editing and WP:POINTY. Further, this is a BLP policy issue which falls under criteria 9 of WP:DEL-REASON so your assertion that notability policy is the only relevant policy at AFD is false. Deleting under a WP:BLPSOURCES failure rationale is perfectly acceptable under criteria 9. One can meet an SNG but still be deleted if it fails a WP:DEL-REASON criteria external to a notability issue.4meter4 (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The book is notable, but the author isn't since one needs multiple notable works to demonstrate NCREATIVE, but since this information would be on said article anyway, I could convert it into an article on the book if that is what people wish. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please show where NCREATIVE requires multiple notable works? Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted for further discussion on possibility of converting to an article on the book
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to The Reluctant Metrosexual, as suggested by PARAKANYAA. For authors with a single notable book, we typically have an article about the book and not the author; it is redundant to have articles about both. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by MCE89, meets WP:AUTHOR per multiple independent reviews of the book. On the fence about renaming the article though. Procyon117 (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Spanish Open (table tennis)

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

I am struggling to find any WP:SIGCOV for this table tennis competition after using various search terms in English and Spanish. I suggest a redirect or merge to 2019 ITTF Challenge Series unless better sourcing can be located. JTtheOG (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Spain. JTtheOG (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if other editors support a Redirect or Merge here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019 North American Open (table tennis)

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

I am struggling to find enough in-depth coverage of this competition to meet WP:GNG. There is this piece from ButterflyOnline, a Japanese table tennis equipment distributor, but not much else other than a few photo galleries (1, 2, 3). I suggest a redirect or merge to 2019 ITTF Challenge Series. JTtheOG (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Canada. JTtheOG (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping for more opinions on whether or not this article should be Redirected or Merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Bassam Imadi

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

can't find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Fails our general notability guideline as well as our our subject-specific guideline --AgusTates (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? What is wrong with the existing sources (two of which are secondary and not affiliated with the subject)? I also found [45]. I don't see any legitimate rationale for deletion. — Anonymous 03:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Syria, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I offer no opinion with regard to the merits of the article itself or whether it meets the GNG, but I did want to note that the nominator linked to NWEB as the "subject-specific guideline" this article fails. I don't think NWEB is applicable to a biographical article on a former Syrian ambassador that does not discuss web content at all. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Affairs Office (Syria)

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

Likely to become notable, but WP:TOOSOON. All we have are a handful of news articles from about a month ago and no further coverage. The status of the government of Syria itself is murky enough. — Anonymous 02:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Syria. — Anonymous 02:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frank DelRoy

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

Two memorials are not good enough sourcing for WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, Indiana, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A brief search on Newspapers.com turned up numerous articles about Delroy. I've added a few to the article. Delroy was also inducted into the United States Auto Clubs Hall of Fame, which indicates his significance.

RegalZ8790 (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delroy's role at the Indianapolis 500, with the United States Auto Club and his induction into its Hall of Fame are all backed by reliable and verifiable sources establishing his claim to notability. Thanks to RegalZ8790 for adding sources and expanding the article to further support the claim. Alansohn (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Behindd

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

The entire article feels like COI due to this page being the only user's contributions and the user's repeated attempts to move the draft to the articlespace but forgetting that this unreleased film is not notable. It's just promotional material about the film's material and teaser. DareshMohan (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Not enough coverage to show that the production is notable (just some brief coverage about the teaser), so fails WP:NFF. Might become notable upon release. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard McKay (British businessman)

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

Fails WP:BIO. (Previously declined for notability issues during AfC, but author self-moved to mainspace)

Two sources are press releases, and the third source appears to be a self-published guest post on a website. Snowycats (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. Snowycats (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent sources to be found. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sprung Gym Flooring

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

I don't see how this can pass WP:ORG. (Previously rejected for reading like an advertisement during AfC, but author self-moved to mainspace)

Still smells like an ad, with only limited coverage, and relies on self-pitched press releases. Snowycats (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Kingdom. Snowycats (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent sources to be found. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fuller Road

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

Non notable road, Cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails GEOROAD and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 00:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am seeing three sources about it:

Begum, Ayesha (2016) [2012]. "ফুলার রোড" [Fuller Road]. Encyclopedia of Dhaka (in Bengali). Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. pp. 262–263. ISBN 9789845120197.
ফুলার রোডকে প্রেম চত্বর মনে করেন বহিরাগতরা
ফুলার রোডে নিয়ম করে চলে বাইক রেস-স্ট্যান্ট, দুর্ঘটনার আশঙ্কা

The first source is from an encyclopedia which is notable and important for Dhaka-related topics. In this sense, the subject is notable and doesn’t fail. Mehedi Abedin 11:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are pretty much LOCALCOVERAGE and TRIVIAL pieces, Unable to view the book so unable to comment on this, imho still fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 18:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to come to some conclusion on whether or not these sources are sufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dhaka University - there's almost enough coverage here but it doesn't quite pass WP:GNG, but it runs directly thru the university. SportingFlyer T·C 20:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Achmed Labasanov

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails GNG for not having WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS, WP:RS whereby the subject is talked about in length and dept for WP:V. Subjects also fails NMMA for not being a champion in top tier promotion or is ranked top ten in the world. Cassiopeia talk 00:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Russia. Cassiopeia talk 00:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of sources and it clearly fails WP:GNG. Koshuri ^(グ) 19:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://thecritic.co.uk/issues/march-2023/first-lady-of-lords/

[2] ttps://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1067634/let-s-play-it-by-ear

[3] ttps://www.kentcricket.co.uk/news/ten-more-kent-women-cap-recipients-announced/

[4] ttps://www.espncricinfo.com/on-this-day/cricket-events/December/5

[5] ttps://bnl.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/BermudaNP17/id/35338/

[6] 
Gould, Jim; Rudman, Jim; Gregory, Clive; Zucchi, Louise; Downing, Mark; Peters, Carole; Clarke, Heather; Kapur, Updesh (1 February 1986). "Miracle escape of Shuttle Echo Mike". Leicester Mercury. Leicester, Leicestershire, England. p. 1. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.
Gould, Jim; Rudman, Jim; Gregory, Clive; Zucchi, Louise; Downing, Mark; Peters, Carole; Clarke, Heather; Kapur, Updesh (1 February 1986). "Miracle escape of Shuttle Echo Mike". Leicester Mercury. Leicester, Leicestershire, England. p. 11. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via British Newspaper Archive.
Byrne, Gerry (2 February 1986). "'Wind shear' may have caused Aer Lingus crash". Sunday Tribune. p. 3. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via British Newspaper Archive.
"Aer Lingus crash: first report". Long Eaton Advertiser. Long Eaton, Derbyshire, England. 9 May 1986. p. 3. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.
"Aer Lingus crash: 'The pilots were heroes'". Nottingham Evening Post. Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, England. 20 January 1988. p. 1. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.
Kelly, Andrew (20 January 1988). "Aer Lingus Plane Crash". RTÉ. Retrieved 18 January 2025.
Webster, Louise (21 January 1988). "Plane crash probe | Villagers call for quicker inquiries". Evening Telegraph. Derby, Derbyshire, England. p. 7. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.

[7] Gould, Jim; Rudman, Jim; Gregory, Clive; Zucchi, Louise; Downing, Mark; Peters, Carole; Clarke, Heather; Kapur, Updesh (1 February 1986). "Miracle escape of Shuttle Echo Mike". Leicester Mercury. Leicester, Leicestershire, England. p. 1. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.

[8] Gould, Jim; Rudman, Jim; Gregory, Clive; Zucchi, Louise; Downing, Mark; Peters, Carole; Clarke, Heather; Kapur, Updesh (1 February 1986). "Miracle escape of Shuttle Echo Mike". Leicester Mercury. Leicester, Leicestershire, England. p. 11. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via British Newspaper Archive.

[9] Byrne, Gerry (2 February 1986). "'Wind shear' may have caused Aer Lingus crash". Sunday Tribune. p. 3. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via British Newspaper Archive.

[10] "Aer Lingus crash: first report". Long Eaton Advertiser. Long Eaton, Derbyshire, England. 9 May 1986. p. 3. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.

[11] "Aer Lingus crash: 'The pilots were heroes'". Nottingham Evening Post. Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, England. 20 January 1988. p. 1. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.

[12] Kelly, Andrew (20 January 1988). "Aer Lingus Plane Crash". RTÉ. Retrieved 18 January 2025.

[13] Webster, Louise (21 January 1988). "Plane crash probe | Villagers call for quicker inquiries". Evening Telegraph. Derby, Derbyshire, England. p. 7. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.

[Davies1975-06-09-7] Davies, Bernard (1975-06-09). "One Man's Television". Broadcast. No. 814. p. 19. ProQuest 1776921097.

[Brayfield1975-05-28-8] Brayfield, Celia (1975-05-28). "Programme guide compiled by Celia Brayfield". Evening Standard. ProQuest 2712585962. Archived from the original on 2025-01-18. Retrieved 2025-01-18 – via Newspapers.com.

[Day-Lewis1975-05-29-9] Day-Lewis, Sean (1975-05-29). "Television: Girl of compassion in Vietnam war". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2025-01-18. Retrieved 2025-01-18 – via Newspapers.com.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]