< February 28 March 02 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trackers Series

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

Article about a book series, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, books are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show passage of WP:GNG on third-party coverage about them (book reviews, etc.) -- but this makes no real notability claim over and above "book that exists", and the only true "reference" here is a deadlinked primary source that wasn't support for notability even when it was live, while the other footnote is merely a clarifying note rather than a source.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more expertise in this genre of literature than I've got can actually find sufficient sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My instinct is to rework the article to be about the first book in the series. Astaire (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: found two more brief reviews for the second book: [5] [6]
So both books appear to meet NBOOK #1, but only as independent entities. Astaire (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: iirc, the issue of the notability of series with weakly-notable books has been discussed before in other literature-related AfDs. I think this fits the situation well; instead of having two weakly-notable books, we can just have an article about the series as a whole. See the Merging to broader subjects section of WP:NBOOK for a bit more on this. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with this. With series, the thing is that in most cases there isn't going to be a ton of coverage for the series as a whole. It's usually a case of coverage for the individual books with some general mention of the series progressing. It's also super common for a series to have only 1-2 notable entries - not all of which are going to be the first book in the series. As far as series notability goes, if there is coverage for the individual entries then that establishes notability for the series. It's one part of a whole - if the hand model for the first Twilight were to ever pass NBIO and have an article, the article would be on the person - not her hands, even though her hands would be what she would be best known for.
    The general consensus has been that in cases like this, the best option is typically to have an article on the series. Individual entries on the books runs a huge risk of not being comprehensive or containing so much info on the series that it takes over the article. There's also a risk of it just not appearing cohesive, for the article to be about the third book and then to have a huge section about the series as a whole. I've found that creating a series page greatly decreases the chances of someone trying to create individual book pages. I think part of that is because when people read series they tend to think of it as a series, rather than the individual entries, if that makes sense. So their need for information will be sated by the series article rather than reading an article about the third book in the series. It also takes care of issues where the books are weakly notable (but still pass NBOOK by the skin of their teeth) - we can compile those into a single whole and have it be a bit more informative than a redirect to a bibliography section. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's been established that the individual books technically pass NBOOK and are individually notable. However the coverage for them is very light as a whole. With this in mind, it makes much more sense to retain a series article than to split this into two extremely weak articles that would contain a lot of the same information as far as the interactive elements go. There's enough sourcing that a redirect to the author's article seems a little disingenuous - there's enough here to cobble together a small article - I could probably expand it a bit more with a release section that covered when and where the books were released, and by whom. (IE, if there are any foreign language translations and all of that.)
The coverage also gives me a very mild sense that there might be more, but I wouldn't bet the farm on that. It's a children's series, put out during a time where there were an exceptionally large amount of children's series - so the fact that this got any attention at all is kind of amazing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'd support this solution as well. Astaire (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, both books are weakly notable, and per WP:PAGEDECIDE, better to cover them as one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: for reasons outlined above. Each volume is marginally notable but it makes much more sense to cover these as a series per WP:PAGEDECIDE, even if it appears to be a series of two. (P.S. someone please move this to Trackers (series) upon closure of this AfD.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lightly notable. WiinterU 23:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Much of the support for keeping comes from new accounts and IP addresses - this does not invalidate them in and of itself, but their unfamiliarity with our policies shows, as the sources being put forward as evidence of notability have been comprehensively rebutted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Dias

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

Does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Most sources have little independent reporting or are simply not secondary. MarioGom (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Brazil. MarioGom (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Note the previous nomination was resolved with delete, and the article history is full of COI and undisclosed paid editing. MarioGom (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:PROF#C7. Sources don’t have to be fully secondary. Multiple interviews count as notability for academics. C7 was always a backdoor for academics. If we don’t like it, we should change the criteria then. There are more interviews beyond the ones in the article [7] [8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. Contributor892z (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note here that you have a conflict of interest with this article and assisted by an undisclosed paid editor. We do require reliable and secondary sources, and it is insulting that you insinuate you want to use a backdoor to get this article through. Interviews are not significant independent coverage. MarioGom (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me reword what I said. I don’t want to use a backdoor. Poor choice of words. I am saying that C7 is a valid criterion for notability of academics. Multiple interviews are interpreted as a whole as significant independent coverage in the case of academics. I am not the one who wrote these rules! Look at this delete discussion [15]. The fact I have a COI is irrelevant for the facts and rules. Contributor892z (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those sources look like they may not be independent.
    • EU Reporter [16] States at the bottom of the article "EU Reporter publishes articles from a variety of outside sources which express a wide range of viewpoints. The positions taken in these articles are not necessarily those of EU Reporter." It also has no byline.
    • ValiantCEO [17] Author is Jerome Knyszewski who describes himself on the site as "the Reputation Management Expert with the most recommendations and endorsements on the professional network, LinkedIn".
    • Entrepreneur [18] States at the top "Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own" and consensus is that we should treat those articles as self published
    • Global Finance and Review [19] Has a disclaimer at the top of the article stating "... you may consider all articles or links hosted on our site as a commercial article placement".
    Bilby (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: ValiantCEO - Jerome Knyszewski is the editor of that magazine. That article for sure was not sponsored. The magazine has a clear editorial policy [20] and is used as reliable source in other business related BLPs such as Daymond John and Kerry Chen. Same for EU Reporter, editorial policy is here [21] (item 4) and it specifies that sponsored content should be labelled as such. Contributor892z (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is an interview and it contains no independent reporting. I don't think this source provides any proof of notability. MarioGom (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It does for academics SNG, crit 7a. The criteria (and interpretation from past delete discussions) is clear: don’t need to have content about the subject, you just need multiple quotes from the subject about their area of expertise. So, given that last year AI applied to business was the hot topic, Valiant CEO was the typical content someone would expect from a notable academic; quotes about the topic of AI applied to business. Contributor892z (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. A quote from an expert as part of an independent, reliable and secondary source is not the same as an interview in a cheap reputation management site. MarioGom (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The amount of time being spent with this discussion is not really being productive. I think we should give some space for others to speak. I made my point, you made your point. Have a nice day. Contributor892z (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Jerome Knyszewski is a reputation management expert, and describes himself as such. An article by someone who charges for reputation management rings a lot of alarm bells. Edit: looking at it again, this should probably be viewed as self published. Based on the process they describe here, all they do when editing is grammar and spelling. To be interviewed you fill in a form and just apply. I do not know if there is a payment involved as well. - Bilby (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, the way you are presenting information seems to be partial. I will WP:AGF but just to set the facts straight, you forgot to include the page that precedes the one you showed. [22] You only get an interview slot by invitation only and you must be considered a thought leader. I can’t get interviewed about my college degree coursework, for example. Also, you forgot to mention that given the loads of sources we found already (and I searched on Google and found many more beyond the ones in the article and the ones already mentioned in this delete discussion), the subject is highly likely to meet WP:THREE. Contributor892z (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I fear you may have looked at the title, but at the FAQ. To be inteviewed you can nominate yourself by filling out a form here. Then they send you questions and you pick 10 you want to answer out of the 30 provided. You can take your time, because "you don’t have a deadline and you get to portray yourself in the very best light possible." [23] When done, you send it back and they "take a look at your answers and make sure there’s no spelling or grammar mistakes." Then they publish. And no, so far I have seen one ref that might be ok, but I don't know for sure. I don't think I've seen three. This source isn't one of the potential three. - Bilby (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So, shall I try to nominate myself to talk about my college degree coursework to see if I get accepted for an interview? :) Contributor892z (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as in the previous AfD, only a year ago, which came to the consensus that he did not pass WP:PROF, did not pass WP:PROF#C7, and did not pass WP:GNG. Nothing has changed since then. In particular, as I wrote in the previous AfD, "Weak citation record [24] definitely fails WP:PROF#C1. No evidence of WP:GNG-based notability. PROF#C7 is only for people so famous as being academic experts in some specialty that they are frequently sought after by the media for quotes on stories relating to that specialty, for which we also lack evidence." I'll also note that some of Contributor892z's comments here amount to WP:WAX as I noted that they did in the previous AfD —David Eppstein (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As per WP:WAX “If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates.” Something changed since the previous AfD. Several more interviews. Contributor892z (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Computing, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he has been appearing quite a bit on TV recently, the page is one of the most popular in Wiki Brazil [25] for a reason. If someone needs to appear in the media to satisfy the criteria, this is the case for sure, at least right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.59.69.52 (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC) — 212.59.69.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep – The article in GQ South Africa (link) provides an in-depth examination of Stalwart Holdings, led by its co-founder and CEO, Dr. Fabio Dias. It presents a comprehensive analysis of the company’s AI-driven investment strategy, which enables a small team of seven to function with the efficiency of a much larger organization.
Dr. Dias, a financial modeling instructor at the University of Surrey, spearheads the firm’s AI innovations, emphasizing transparency and adherence to ethical standards. The article presents a balanced perspective, acknowledging both the firm’s technological advancements and the concerns surrounding its approach. An anonymous University of Surrey academic expresses skepticism about Dr. Dias' academic influence, while Dr. Seth Dobrin, founder of Qantm AI and former Chief AI Officer at IBM, highlights the critical ethical considerations in AI implementation.
By offering significant, independent, and critical coverage, the article meets Wikipedia’s WP:GNG guidelines. The discussion of both the Fabio Dias' innovations and criticisms further reinforces its notability. This level of in-depth reporting from a respected publication justifies the subject’s inclusion on Wikipedia. Rimesodom (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That article is flagged as "partnered" by GQ. Which seems to mean that it is sponsored content and not independent. - Bilby (talk) 07:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, partnered only means it was done with the help of an external journalist/media company, but still was subject to the magazine's editorial oversight. Sponsored is clearly labelled as sponsored, see here: [26]. There is strong consensus that GQ is a reliable source and they do label their sponsored content appropriately. Contributor892z (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By "partnered" could the external agency may have been hired or otherwise connected to the subject? I think if they partnered with an external agency, and we do not know who the agency is, it is best to assume that this is not truely independent. - Bilby (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Rimesodom mentioned, the article had a balanced tone and was subject to editorial oversight. The presence of editorial oversight makes it independent. I see partnered content akin to someone asking for an independent review of something. For the review to start, it needed the someone to ask for it, but from that point onwards it is independent. GQ would not have even accepted to write this article if they didn’t think it was somehow notable. Contributor892z (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I will take that as yes, they could have "pertnered" with an external agency who was connected with the subject. - Bilby (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, GQ could have asked for information from someone connected to the subject. But still is a GQ article, with GQ editorial oversight. Like every interview. GQ had the power to choose what went into that article, and to keep in line with their reputation of good editorial oversight, they made sure the article was balanced. Contributor892z (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that. But they "partnered" with an organisation to write the article that is likely to be connected to the subject. That is what I had assumed, especially given some of the other sources. - Bilby (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And why would that make the source unreliable? If I am writing an article about someone that I don’t know, I need to hear their side of the story, no? That makes me reliable and balanced. Otherwise I would be partial or tell factually incorrect information. I would expect nothing less of GQ as a strong reliable source. Contributor892z (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a normal article the journalists would have simply interviewed the subject. But a partnered" article involves them "partnering" with an external agency to write it. Anyway, I'm good. I'll leave it to other editors to decide how much weight to give a partnered article. Personally, though, I wouldn't give it much credit. - Bilby (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Partnered" is what other media outlets call "Branded", "Sponsored", etc. It has, indeed, support from an external entity: the one who pays for the native advertisement. Looking at "partnered" articles at gq.co.za, they are what one would expect from this sort of content: churnalism from marketing materials, not independent. "Partenered" is marketing speech and has this exact meaning (it's just an euphemism). Many examples [27]) if you have a cursory look at any guide about branded content. MarioGom (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources presented are a mix of interviews, quotes, and sponsored posts, none of which are independent sources. The subject clearly fails WP:NPROF, and I dont see any sources that are independent of the subject for the purposes of WP:GNG notability. MCE89 (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sources do add up to significant coverage as most of what I find is non-bylined (yes, the GQ article should not be given weight because of this - you can also read the tone of the article which seems the subject of the article supplied the information himself), mentions, interviews. etc. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks independent sources that demonstrate significant coverage. Madeleine (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand this article has major coi but simple google search shows many articles about him. This person has definitely made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. Like this he is featured on TechTimes which is a notable publication in tech space. There are many sources, this guy definitely meets WP:PROF Criteria 7. I am mentioning criteria 7 for all above delete voters reference.
Criteria 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. a. Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. b. Criterion 7 may also be satisfied if the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study. Books on pseudo-science and marginal or fringe scientific theories are generally not covered by this criterion; their authors may still be notable under other criteria of this guideline or under the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines. c. Patents, commercial and financial applications are generally not indicative of satisfying Criterion 7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyasalones (talk • contribs) 08:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC) — Nyasalones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Yet you fail to call out the keep votes from an IP address and a new account (not to mention yours from an IP with two edits). Keep in mind that AfD is not determine based on a vote count, but instead on policy-based arguments so let's take a quick look at the sources you say us !keep votes are ignoring. Tech Times is a blog that had its Wikipedia page deleted for not being notable. It lists its "reporters" yet the person in the byline is not one of them, indicating it is contributor content without editorial oversight. Looking at it's terms of service, the disclaimer of "we are not responsible for and do not necessarily hold the opinions expressed by out content contributors" confirms such. Grit Daily seems to have conflicting opinions on reliability so I would not necessarily call this source "good." Techng is an interview. Even if the site is considered a reliable source (I would NOT consider such), we don't consider interviews reliable for notability as the information is provided by the subject of the interview so it is not independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the TechTimes that got its Wiki page deleted is not the US website TechTimes.com. The one that got deleted was some Indian non-notable magazine with the same name. Read the delete discussion. The delete discussion itself says that techtimes.com is notable. The US TechTimes is used more than 500 times as a reliable source in Wikipedia [31], so it absolutely is a reliable source. As per the person in the byline not being listed as staff, people change jobs. That person has several articles under their name, it’s unlikely they were just a “contributor”. Contributor892z (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Usage as a source on other Wikipedia articles is absolutely not evidence that it is a reliable source; at best, it is evidence that Wikipedia editors are often sloppy with their sourcing. User:Headbomb's unreliable source detector tags the US TechTimes as "generally unreliable", a site that "has a poor reputation for fact-checking, fails to correct errors, is self-published, is sponsored content, presents user-generated content, violates copyrights, or is otherwise of low-quality". —David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And here you have another reliable source, independent, bylined, notable, and used by Wikipedia hundreds of times for other pages. Contributor892z (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Wilson (courtesan)

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Japan, and Sweden. Joeykai (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is always good when one can just steal the AFD rationale from a Cornell University professor in a CUP book:

    The association of Thomas Glover with Tsuru Yamamura as a potential Butterfly is a fiction perpetuated in tourist brochures and popular magazines: there is no naval officer, no desertion, and no attempted suicide — Tsuru died following surgery in Tokyo in 1899. The misinformation has been perpetuated by, among others, Duiti Miyazawa, “The Original Cio-cio-san,” Opera News, 17.11 (January 1953): 2–5 and “La vera Cio-cio-san,” Musica d'oggi, NS 1,2-3; Roderick Cameron "The Real Madame Butterfly," Musical Americal, 82, no. 1 (November 1962): 10-11, 46. Edith Correl Spindle, a daughter of Jennie Correll, who had known the Glovers and studied the opera at the New England Conservatory of Music, was outraged over Miyasawa's speculation. Opera News did not print her letter of protest.

    — Groos, Arthur (2023). Madama Butterfly/Madamu Batafurai: Transpositions of a 'Japanese Tragedy'. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781009250702., p.224
    Professor Groos could have added "and by Wikipedia for 17 years". And if you enjoyed that, there's this swipe in a research guide from a musicologist at the University of Richmond, in the entry for the aforementioned Miyasawa 1959 article:

    Miyasawa reveals that the model for Cio-Cio-San was Tsuru Yamamura, a geisha married to the Scottish businessman Thomas Glover. After offering facts that contradict these identifications, the author concludes that the truth is unimportant […]

    — Fairtile, Linda B. (2013). Giacomo Puccini: A Guide to Research. Routledge Music Bibliographies. Routledge. ISBN 9781135592349., p.151
    Scholars say that all the sources that we could possibly use here for writing on this subject, Tsuru Yamamura by a supposed other name, are untruths. Groos even explains how this falsehood was invented for American tourists because the Japanese couldn't shake the nickname given by Occupying American forces to Glover's mansion after World War 2. Wikipedia is not — well, no longer — for perpetuating a historical myth fabricated for tourists. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment does anyone know here Japanese name is (the kanji that is). So I can have a Japanese search on either GBooks or GNews. Thanks Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to get a grasp of where the academics stand on this, which is largely that there's no correlation between historical figures and an opera, and that the assertions that there is come from people wanting to promote tourism or their claims of family background, I suggest starting with Earns 2007 cited in Thomas Blake Glover. Take particular note of the addendum and Earns's own expert opinion of Van Rij's sources. Our article in fact has cited the later Burke-Gaffney book since 2007. Groos has expanded on xyr position since 1991, but mainly only by adding the Cary Grant connection. I quote xem from 2023 above. Uncle G (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - whether or not she was an inspiration for an opera, that's not enough, without significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I can't find significant coverage either, and the one reference given doesn't support the content. It seems like Uncle G may have unraveled some of the story but their conclusion is that this biography may be fiction. Note the one given reference is also used for John Wilson (Swedish sailor), which should also be proposed for deletion as I can't find anything about this person either. Nnev66 (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on a draft let me know or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akila Muthuramalingam

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

As far as I can see, the subject of the article doesn't fit [WP:PROF] also failed GNG Zdrada (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antoinette Abbott

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

doesnt match [WP:BIO] and [WP:PORNBIO]. I couldn't find any sources indicating notability. Yes, there is a lot of material on the internet related to her. But it's not exactly what I'm looking for. Pollia (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) User Dormskirk helped fix many of the problems. (non-admin closure) Polygnotus (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4imprint

4imprint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, spam Polygnotus (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extensive coverage demonstating notability. A member of the FTSE 250 Index, of largest companies listed on the London Stock Exchange, with extensive incoming links. Dormskirk (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 01:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Appelbaum

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

Article about a recently deceased music engineer, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. As written, this literally just states that he existed and then died, without documenting even one thing about his career that could be measured against NMUSIC criteria at all, and for referencing it cites one primary source (the self-published website of an organization he was directly affiliated with) that isn't support for notability and one newspaper article that's a valid start toward WP:GNG but not enough all by itself. And while there's a "this article can be expanded from German" notice on it, the German article (which was also created within the past week based on his death) has more text but is still based entirely on primary and unreliable sourcing (a paid-inclusion legacy.com obituary, a directory of his contributions to a magazine where he was the author of content about other things rather than the subject of content written by other people, etc.) rather than WP:GNG-building reliable sources. So even if we did translate the other article, we'd still need to see much better sourcing anyway.
As this is a specialized subject I don't have a lot of knowledge about, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more expertise can salvage the article with more substance about his career and better sourcing for it, but one obituary isn't enough to make him "inherently" notable just for existing. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I'm seeing consensus for keeping despite the numerical split. I will note that having an article on Wikipedia is a poor test of notability of songs - notability is demonstrated by SIGCOV. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Brayer

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources, just a few local sources. No indication of awards or charted songs. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It looks to me like he would meet WP:NMUSIC criteria. As Zutano999 notes, two of his songs have been covered by notable artists on Grammy or Gold winning albums. He has also released albums himself, which I'll look for reviews of. (I have commented on other AfDs that I don't understand why new articles are nominated for deletion the same day they appear. AfD is not meant to be for improving articles - why not tag the article and wait for it to be improved before bringing it here? New editors are not always familiar with how to show notability. I also think it would be more useful to add "citation needed" tags to unsourced content - the content is there in the history, but not obvious on first glance to editors participating here.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC) Please see my talk page for why I am striking my participation in this AfD. RebeccaGreen (talk)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: Brayer wrote two songs which were included--along with several other songs written by several other songwriters--on two albums which won various awards. Which part of WP:NMUSIC suggests this makes the each of those individual songwriters "notable"? --Magnolia677 (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the WP:NMUSIC for composers specifically looks like this entry meets the criteria. The mutli-grammy album he co-wrote a song on is actually named for that song, for example. Maybe it should be re-categorized to focus more on singer-songwriter and composer to make that clearer. Zutano999 (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments here, and I don't really understand why they are struck through. I am a new Wiki editor, with a particular focus on musical ephemera that is perhaps not as well known or not as well documented. It does help to have a few days to work on a new article to refine it rather than having them summarily deleted. Arguably, this artists has had an outsized influence on a number of major singers in Country and Bluegrass nationally, and has certainly had a significant impact in the Southern California alternative country scene. The fact that most of his work as a concert organizer predates the internet, and thus has few available citations, seems to really be counting against him in this context. Zutano999 (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen: First, WP:NSONG applies to the notability of songs, not biographies. Also, how can this person meet WP:COMPOSER #1, which states: "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition", when there is no Wikipedia article to make (Good) Imitation of the Blues a "notable composition"? Magnolia677 (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that some of these songs have multiple covers by singificant figures in Country & Western and Bluegrass musicians speaks to the impact. Zutano999 (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which notable songs has he written? Magnolia677 (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to The Flash (1990 TV series)#Home media. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Flash (1990 film)

The Flash (1990 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant WP:CONTENTFORK of a rejected draft Draft:The Flash (1990 film) which is for a film that does not actually exist on its own, but is rather a physical media release of the pilot episode of The Flash (1990 TV series), which was created by a since blocked user bypassing the AfC system. This topic is not notable on its own and the release of it on physical media does not warrant a separate article or the distinction of being a different film when it is not. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -This is just the 2 hour pilot for The Flash (1990 TV series) and has no independent notability. The title with a disambiguator of "1990 film" is rather misleading as this is a pilot episode and not a film so I do not support redirection. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Draft:The Flash (1990 film): or Keep and merge the draft into the page. Coverage seems to be sufficient to meet the requirements for notability. -Mushy Yank. 18:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're claiming Coverage seems to be sufficient to meet the requirements for notability. Can you point out that coverage? The references provided in the article are about the TV series, and not this "movie". Even the claim of this being edited to a 93 minute VHS release is not substatntiated by the provided reference as it states There were three “movies” — multiple episodes cut to feature length and released on home video — that came out on VHS so it isn't even clear that this pilot episode was released as a movie rather than repackaging and cutting multiple epsiodes to make a "movie". -- Whpq (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See below. The coverage is already in the main article and a redirect can address the issue. -Mushy Yank. 18:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The "AfC system" is not mandatory. -Mushy Yank. 18:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a subject already rejected at AfC because it did not meet notability, and then this was created to bypass that, thus ignoring that it did not meet notability. This is not even a new topic, as it is just the series' pilot episode released on Blu-ray as if it were a movie, when it is not. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. (Even if it's a pilot dressed as a film, that commercial ruse was not the deed of the page creator.) Redirect to The Flash (1990 TV series)#Home media, where it is covered, then. -Mushy Yank. 18:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I still believe this DAB is misleading as it implies a film exists from 1990 when that is not true. A more appropriate and accurate DAB would be "The Flash (1990 TV pilot)". Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this is why I feel like redirecting in this case isn't useful. Additionally, while this concern is tangential, I think there's a non zero chance the creator could reverse the redirection via sock and I feel like it's better to just delete the history and cut off that potential for disruption. And as I said below, I'm not sure this would be a good redirect, but also I don't think we need to quibble over that too much. There seems to be consensus to delete this regardless. If another editor in good standing does feel the need to redirect the title after the AfD is closed, then that'd be perfectly fine. Edit: My opinion has changed and my vote has been revised accordingly. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect names do not have to be fully accurate. We even have the rcat Template:R from incorrect name. Redirects need to be plausible search terms, and if someone has a misconception about a topic which is reflected in their search query, that will be corrected upon their arrival to the target article, where they will be able to learn how the topic is really defined. —Alalch E. 05:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The creator who published the draft has been observed gaming/brute-forcing the AfC system and has not demonstrated adequate understanding of notability and other standards for articles despite being informed multiple times, so while it is true that AfC is not mandatory, the publication of this draft in this context is a case of WP:IDHT. Trailblazer has been trying to correct the user for a while, even giving input on the suitability of this specific creation, and is understandably frustrated at having been ignored. That's a separate issue of course, but I just thought I'd try and clarify. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. That was helpful. (See my comments above.) -Mushy Yank. 18:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy speedily delete redirect to The Flash (1990 TV series)#Home media. The sources do not actually cover the pilot as a distinct entity, and certainly do not cover the pilot as "The Flash: The Movie". Each of them are repeatedly WP:REFBOMBed through the article to give the superficial appearance of sourcing, but none of them actually support the view that the article takes of the "film". When I saw this article as a draft, I tried to look up the "film", and, finding nothing substantive other than sources about the 1990 TV series, genuinely wondered if perhaps the draft was a hoax, until this marketing strategy was explained to the creator at Draft talk:The Flash (1990 film) by nom.
    This is obviously a WP:POVFORK from someone who insists on the view of the pilot and the "film" as two distinct entities. There is no substantive sourcing available to support this view, and as such this article will likely only serve to confuse readers. Given the lack of significant coverage of even the marketing of the pilot as a film, I'm not sure this title is even a useful redirect. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit: Alalch's points have changed my mind with regards to redirecting the article. I now support redirection. However, the redirect should be watched by editors after the discussion is closed so that any further disruption by the creator can be responded to promptly, if it should occur (hopefully it does not). silviaASH (inquire within) 09:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I had originally marked this for CSD A10 but it was rejected, thus, I have taken it here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Understandably so: a redirect is plausible and the page could have been considered a split. -Mushy Yank. 19:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources on the page do not really cover the crucial points, indeed. But some existing sources do (see above (Draft/Main article), for example). And if this "film" is not a notable entity but only notable as part of something else, a redirect should be considered (as a section [repeated in the Draft] covers the production of this in the main article). GBooks shows a lot of results to verify the release and content but try to search with the titles of parts II and III as this one has a very generic title. Anyway, there is no reason to speedy-delete this, as far as I can see. -Mushy Yank. 19:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salted rd; see below Even thinking of it as a pilot episode as it should be, this is a poor recap and framing of a standard episode of television as a 'movie' which outside one 90s VHS tape that appropriately existed to introduce the show to video store renters (and which other generations have wrongly twisted into some campaign to convert it to a theatrical franchise when that was never intended), has otherwise been appropriately marketed as just another episode in other releases of the series as it should be. Nathannah • 📮 23:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no sources actually cover this subject enough to warrant a standalone article, it's home to just unrelated and irrelevant content. BarntToust 03:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Flash (1990 TV series)#Home media. "The Flash (1990 film)" is a plausible search term. Agree with all the deletes. However, it was stated above that there is a non zero chance the creator could reverse the redirection via sock. On principle I reject this reason not to employ an otherwise valid ATD. We have NPP, page protection, an ability to block socks, etc.—Alalch E. 05:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking salted redirect but wasn't sure anyone would agree with that, so I'm very happy to support this so that it's clear what it actually is to the reader. 21:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC) Nathannah • 📮 21:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that redirection makes the most logical sense should deletion not be agreed upon. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Flash (1990 TV series)#Home media. No opposed to Delete. No notability for standalone article. RangersRus (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Melbourne Football Club players. Consensus is now clear. Owen× ☎ 11:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Paul

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. Cannot locate reliable, significant sources in support of the player's notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia is not a directory of Australian football players nor a historical document. -The Gnome (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC) -The Gnome (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of engaging in such a foaming, often incoherent, personal attack, an action that, you should know, does not go unpunished here, you are kindly advised to focus on the heart of the matter. Where are the sources that support the article's subject as being independently notable? As to what "has been agreed", I have no idea what you're talking about and would speculate you are confusing me for someone else. -The Gnome (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can't wait to see what my punishment is. If you think that was "foaming, often incoherent" (that seems like a personal attack on me!), you should've seen the first draft before I toned it down. See Talk:Bill_Ockleshaw for an example of how other deletionists go about it. Have you read the Purpose document yet? Or are you too busy trying to delete articles that were legitimately created under previous guidelines? The-Pope (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why you are unable to simply acknowledge that you accused me of something I was not part of is no longer my concern. Sarcastic expressions such as "too busy" close down firmly all avenues of decent communication. Only this, self-evident truth: When the rules change, we change our actions accordingly. That's how it goes wherever there are rules, from society's laws to Wikipedia's policies. And now you're on your own. -The Gnome (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. No valid argument has been given why this should be deleted when such an obvious valid alternative to deletion exists. The crusade against sports continues while others skate by with a free pass. When are we going to see the same standards applied to academics and artists or are they worthy pursuits unlike the undignified practice of grown men chasing around after a ball. Let's enforce rules for some while we ignore them for others. Incoherent foaming done for now. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second comment attacking the nominator instead of addressing the points raised in the nomination. For what little it may be worth, and as it happens, I have no idea whatsoever what on Earth is that "crusade" you are talking about, and I do not want to know! But where do you get this notion of me dismissing sports as "undignified"? It would prevent you from posting up such nonsense if you knew more about my person but, of course, I will not go there. As to the "valid argument" for deletion which you claim is absent, it is already present in the nomination: The subject lacks notability as notability is defined in Wikipedia. Importantly, Wikipedia is not a directory of all sportsmen, for any sport, from Australian-rules football to Zorb football. -The Gnome (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The existence of a valid ATD does not invalidate a nomination to delete, certainly not to the point of Speedy Keep being a valid close. Discarding that and the distasteful personal attack, we're left here with nothing other than the nomination. Kindly stick to substantive arguments for retention, redirection or deletion. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 18:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stealpop's Basics

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

Seems to be non-notable. An article sourced mainly by IMDb makes me doubt WP:SIGCOV. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 15:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed those references of IMDB hopefully its alright Antsofsanta1 (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Star Mississippi 18:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Didillon

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

There is almost no coverage of Christophe Didillon or his art and he hasn't had any significant exhibitions. Ynsfial (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Felinton

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

His movies and book have all been nominated for deletion with overwhelming support for deletion. There are no significant reviews of anything he's made. His involvement in the religious freedom lawsuit is not enough for notability. This seems to be a coordinated promotional effort considering the articles created about his non notable movies and book. Ynsfial (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Death of Film
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teenager Business
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/As the Sunflower Whispers
GeorgiaHuman (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Full disclosure, I was the one who brought the editor to WP:COI/N. Since there's a strong chance that Felinton or someone else related will read this, I want them to know that none of what I am going to write is meant to be personal. Establishing notability on Wikipedia is extremely difficult.
Now all of that aside, Felinton's coverage does not establish how he passes NBIO. The coverage is almost entirely local, with the exception of the walkout and even that has some issues. I'm going to summarize this into a few groups:
  1. Local coverage tends to not hold as much water on Wikipedia. The reason for this is that local papers are very likely to cover local people. Sure, they don't cover every single local person but they're still likely to cover local people. Felinton being the son of the former mayor likely helped with getting coverage as well. (Not saying that is the only reason he gained coverage, but it likely didn't hurt.) Local coverage is, by its very nature, not widespread. What's needed here is to show where Felinton is notable outside of his home town or is of very major importance and getting coverage from the local papers and stations just doesn't establish that. Now if his work were contained in say, the permanent archives of the Huntington Museum of Art or the feature of an exhibition there, that would be a bit of a game changer because getting an exhibition or into the permanent archives would not be an easy feat - major and bigger art museums don't host just anyone.
  2. The issue with the walkout is that Felinton wasn't the main focus. It's unclear if he had any sort of leadership role in the walkout or the following lawsuit, or if he happened to be someone chosen to be interviewed. Sometimes people can become a known aspect of an event, but in that situation it then becomes an issue of trying to show how they are independently notable of the event. Coverage of Felinton in relation to the walkout is uneven - CNN puts quite a bit of focus on him while the Guardian relegates him to a quote by his mother. To be honest, I don't see where any student gained enough coverage to really be highlighted.
  3. The article also makes some claims and some of the other articles up for deletion makes claims of him being the first to make a certain type of movie. The issue with claims of this nature is that they're kind of hard to prove and being the first or breaking a record isn't always something that would be considered notable on Wikipedia. We'd need coverage of this in multiple independent, secondary reliable sources to establish how its notable.
Now what this all boils down to is this: the local coverage isn't really useful in establishing notability because it doesn't really show that he's notable outside of his local area. The various claims made throughout the articles aren't enough to establish notability because the only outlets reporting on this are local, which doesn't really help establish how the claims are notable. Finally, the walkout itself doesn't seem to be so notable event that it would merit its own article, let alone establish how Felinton is independently notable of the walkout. The walkout is already covered in a sentence in the main article - I would recommend adding an additional sentence about the lawsuit, but I don't think any specific names are needed there.
Again, none of this should be taken personally. It's not meant to be. It's just that Felinton doesn't pass NBIO with the given sourcing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: One might say that this is a coördinated de-promotional effort. While most of the coverage is local, there's a significant quantity of it and the sources are fairly major regional ones. I suggested merging the book article with this one yesterday, before this article was nominated for deletion, and would suggest the same with the film. The walkout made national and I think international headlines; it's not the most noteworthy event, but combined with the other things—the film at least is mentioned in non-local media—I think that Felinton meets the bare minimum standard for notability. Perhaps just barely. If this were really coatracking, the article might have mentioned that his father was mayor of Huntington, which is why David Felinton has his own article. I actually find that a rather puzzling thing not to have mentioned at all. But barely notable is notable, and if you combine the other two articles here I think he meets that standard. P Aculeius (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Ynsfial, GeorgiaHuman, and ReaderofthePack. This is a non-notable creator of an exceedingly minor self-published book and a student film who is trying to use Wikipedia to promote themselves. This wildly misses the mark of WP:CREATIVE. They are not "regarded as an important figure ... widely cited by peers or successors" etc. Participating in a single high school student protest does not make this a notable human rights activist. Asparagusstar (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but stubify and perhaps rename. How many times do I have to remind folks that everyone knows that we are not a free social media platform? I remember the walkout incident and the subsequent lawsuit by ACLU. I'm not sure if that's my own POV, as an attorney and teacher, that I pay attention to such things. (FWIW, I've never been a member of ACLU, but I've got friends who are active.) The rest of the subject's activities seem trivial compared with that, and are of the world record type of coverage, which we tend to avoid. I don't object to mostly local coverage, but again, that's my view. Discuss. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but what would we rename this article to? Perhaps you were referring to the book or the film. Unless there are other notable persons named "Samuel Felinton" with whom this subject might be confused, this would seem to be the logical title for the article. One alternative occurs to me: do we have an article about the assembly and ensuing protests? The subject and his subsequent actions could potentially be merged there; if all that's left of this in the end is a stub, then that could probably fit in such an article. P Aculeius (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Since there's no evidence that he passes WP:NCREATIVE with any of his works having multiple independent reviews (and honestly, how would any reviewer sit through his 51,360-minute movie?), this is a clear WP:BLP1E situation. Fails WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 18:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pegine Echevarria

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

She fails WP:GNG despite 46 refs in the article. Most of them are not independent or quick mentions. Promotional and not enough for notability. Ynsfial (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to the significant coverage in the New York Times article and Business Journal articles ThomasHarrisGrantsPass (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Newark Liberty International Airport#Accidents and incidents. where it is already mentioned. History preserved should there be a desire for a merger and/or coverage to spin it back out later comes together. Star Mississippi 18:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FedEx Express Flight 3609

FedEx Express Flight 3609 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS and not notable. ProtobowlAddict uwu! (talk | contributions) 14:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an incident and should be in Wikipedia. Sure, bird strikes do happen but most don’t cause an engine fire. Grffffff (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously it wasn’t “notable” when I made it but news articles are popping up about it. Grffffff (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ChessEric 07:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kyllstru (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Kudos for improving the article. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Los hombres las prefieren viudas

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

Unreferenced film article. No indication of encyclopedic importance is given. Not clear if this passes WP:NFILM or WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteKeep. I kind of jumped out of the plane and built the parachute on the way down. Thanks @Astaire and @Mushy Yank for providing the insight.(Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 14:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did, but Spanish language searches are not my strong suit. I would imagine editors with more experience searching in Spanish and locating sources in historic Spanish language media might have more success than what I was able to achieve. We'll see what others have to say. That's the benefit of AFD. We can pull on the talents and perspectives of the community at large. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Acer-the-ProtogenPlease check the current state of the page. -Mushy Yank. 18:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah. Definitely would keep in its current state, thank you so much. I'll have to work on not jumping to conclusions, and I appreciate your efforts to help this page. 🙂 (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 00:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Noting that I have blocked the nominator for sockpuppetry. There is a history of socking with this article, both promotional and otherwise, so I would have preferred to see more robust discussion here, but with only one !vote for deletion and policy-based arguments to keep I cannot close this differently. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Hoskie

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

This subject lacks Notability as the coverage is limited to local news outlets. The awards mentioned are small, local and not widely recognized, further failing to establish Notability. There is nothing remarkable here. If local coverage alone were sufficient, encyclopedias would be filled with impressive but non-notable individuals.

Which sources are you referring to? Coresly (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What sources? What do you mean by single-purpose account? Tatsuyad (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tatsuyad You have no other edits on Wikipedia other than those related to Roberta Hoskie, which may lead some to believe you're here only to promote the subject on their behalf. This is not allowed under Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 16:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make any sense. I think the subject of this article isn't notable and that's why I nominated it for deletion. So how is it possible that I'm promoting the subject on their behalf? All users on Wikipedia will eventually start with an edit on a single page. That doesn't mean they have a conflict of interest. I've made a few unregistered edits since I was in college. This is my first registered edit because I wanted to figure out how to nominate an article for deletion myself. Have a good day. Tatsuyad (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is promotional content by a single-purpose account and reads like a resume. Sources are all primary (local, or press releases), and her awards won are not notable. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 16:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @HopalongCasualty: You misunderstand, the single purpose account didn't create the article, and the article is neutral and not promotional. The spa's only edits have been to prod the article and then nominate it for deletion! Skyerise (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per meeting WP:SIGCOV: 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020. GNG does no exclude local coverage. It requires "reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Coqui002 (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG also 'means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article'
    If one or two articles in your local paper meant you were Notable enough for an encyclopedia article, every 'local man saves kid from drowning' should have a Wikipedia article according to this logic.
    The NBC article you linked is literally a story about a homeless man finding a wallet and giving it back to Roberta Hoskie. Is that what she's notable for? Getting her loaded wallet back? It's ridiculous to propose this as proof of Notability. The Hartford Business article is a "Single teen mom becomes a successful real estate agent" story. Good for her, but is anyone with a feel good story in a local paper now worthy of a Wikipedia article? Tatsuyad (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a conflict of interest? Creating an account solely for nominating the article for deletion might suggest that. Skyerise (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no conflict of interest. I have edited unregistered for many years. There is a first time for everything. Do you have a conflict of interest? You seem awfully keen on keeping this article. Tatsuyad (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually read the sources after your first prod, added missing citation details to the references, and in the process concluded that deletion was unjustified. I am not a single purpose account, as a glance at my user page could tell you. Skyerise (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to the significant coverage in NBC and the New Haven Register, they are local to New Haven/Connecticut but that doesn't disqualify them from being reliable or meeting the general notability guideline ThomasHarrisGrantsPass (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 14:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hardik Shubhechha

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

It does not meet WP:NFF and WP:GNG criteria because, apart from the film announcement and poster, there is no other news about it in news sources. AShiv1212 (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn‎. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Him and His Sister

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

The only source cited is to a Czech film database that can be edited by anyone with an account. (like wikipedia) It's not reliable. Likewise, the foreign language wiki pages only have film databases like IMDb which are also editable by anyone and considered unreliable. No evidence this film passes WP:NFILM or WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. There's a lack of strong !votes and no indication further input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 18:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eight Schools Association

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

The ESA is an association of wealthy college-preparatory boarding schools in the Northeastern United States. I am concerned that this page does not meet WP:GNG because there is minimal direct coverage from outside, reliable sources, based on a review of Google News, Google Scholar, and the Wikipedia Library (inc. EBSCO and JSTOR). In addition, the material in the article (based primarily on sources and data from the member schools) suggests that the ESA has not been very active since 2013. Several members of the association attempted to start an athletics league, which used to have the Wikipedia page Six Schools League. The SSL page was deleted in July 2024 via WP:PROD, as there was no evidence that the league ever began play. I don't think there was any substantive discussion about the deletion then.

As far as I can tell, the only meaningful discussion of the ESA by an outside source appears to be a 2018 book about campus planning by architect and Princeton administrator Robert Spencer Barnett with photos of the ESA campuses. In his preface, the author states that "limiting the scope [of the book] to this group may seem overly restrictive," but "these schools embody most of the opportunities and challenges that exist at peer institutions."

Other than that, specific descriptions of the ESA in outside sources have generally been limited to offhand mentions in articles about member schools.

In addition, on February 6, I left a notability tag and a message on the article's talk page requesting help finding additional sources, with no response. Namelessposter (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I think that while the article does contain content, the overall notability of the subject simply isn’t there as I can’t really find any coverage relating to it so I think that it should be deleted. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Darren Cross. Star Mississippi 18:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Technological Enterprises

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

Fictional company most prominently related to Ant-Man. Fails WP:GNG (just the usual plot summary and list of appearances; no reception). My BEFORE failed to find anything substantial. Per WP:ATD-R, could redirect (merge?) to Features of the Marvel Universe or Darren Cross (fictional founder, has its own article)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Darren Cross, as the company is predominantly associated with him, regardless of a brief period where he was not in control. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 13:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If redirect or merge, where? Three targets have been suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ and no indication further input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 18:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vitali Island

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

Minimal sourcing about the island. We only have a self-published blog, and two maps 1, 2 Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Philippines, and Islands. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The island has a strong fishing industry [34] and a protected mangrove area [35]. That's enough for notability per WP:NATFEAT. Astaire (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NATFEAT also says if not much can be said about a named feature, the relevant information could be mentioned in a more general article. In this case the economy and geography section of Zamboanga City Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • That applies when the article cannot be developed using known sources, using the example of a river island with no information available except name and location. That's not the case here. Astaire (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is barely an article. I will have to beg to disagree with the interpretation of that provision. The river island is understood to be a just an example. All we have is the name and location and a brief about its "strong fishing industry" contribution to the economy of one of Zamboanga City's district and the island being part of a bigger mangrove area - which can be mentioned in the Zamboanga City article. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I understand this area may be called Vitali Island, but is it actually an island at all? Perhaps rivers technically separate it from the mainland -- though i'm not sure of that -- but it certainly doesn't seem to be "offshore" in the normal sense one would expect.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I spent some time squinting at maps. There does appear to be water all of the way around, separating it from the main Zamboanga Peninsula. It is really difficult to find any English language geographical information — or at least usable information. I had to be really careful with the source that I found, as it has really dated very badly, although seems still usable for the barebones geographic information. Uncle G (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'm convinced it is an island now - this 1950s US Army map shows it nicely [36] - the gap to the mainland looks marshy and perhaps has gotten more built up with aquaculture facilities over time. I'm loathe to !vote "delete" on a landform of this size and may dig around more if time permits.--Milowent
I'm a Keep. Yes, it needs more work. I tracked down today that the island also gets called "Limaong Island" after one of its barangays. Internet coverage of the entire Zamboanga City area is less than robust. But the island has over 7000 inhabitants and a number of schools, known beaches, etc. Compiling will take some work but I'm not convinced there's a lack of notability. E.g., I can tell there is a single bridge to the island, which was wooden and collapsing in 2009, and rebuilt as a concrete bridge in 2017, but still looking for a better source than a Zamboanga-specific wiki.[37]. Milowent • hasspoken 13:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of defunct airlines of the Gambia. Star Mississippi 18:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mahfooz Aviation

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources contained any significant coverage + (WP:ORGDEPTH) of the airline itself and only contained passing/trivial mentions of the airline. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting? Subject is not mentioned at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Sin City characters. ✗plicit 12:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miho (Sin City)

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

Minor comic character. The usual issues with WP:GNG - article is a plot summary + list of appearances; reception is very short (just two listicles). My BEFORE is of no help. WP:ATD-R gives us a plausible target: List of Sin City characters. (If anyone is interested in this series, note I've justed PRODed a bunch of characters/organizations; others will be nominated for AfD - right now I am not seeing any GNG for anything fictional from Template:Sin City. Feel free to deprod and redirect stuff to the list of characters, of course (or we can discuss them here). I am bringing Miho to AfD to notify folks interested in this (and also because she has the most references out of all of the Sin City articles, so it seems she is the 'best' out of this sorry bunch of, let's face it, WP:FANCRUFT). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ketshephaone Jacob

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

Utterly fails WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Cited sources are either ridiculously promotional pieces from unreliable publications, or they're WP:DOGBITESMAN. A cursory search did not help either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the sources are much more about Bulb World and don't have significant coverage about Jacob, even though they may be reliable ThomasHarrisGrantsPass (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paniel Meat Processing

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

This evidently fails WP:ORGCRIT without stressing. The sources do not add any pinch of salt to ORGCRIT for the company in question. Of course, WP:GNG is not satisfied either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. doesn't have enough proper sources to establish notability. Darkm777 (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 12:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miller Matola

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

Subject has an undoubtedly great career, but definitely not English-Wikipedia-notable. Sources range from unreliable interviews to unbylined HQRS. See analysis before for more info.

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes No WP:DOGBITESMAN. ✘ No
No He was a councellor, clearly fails WP:INDEPENDENT. No We can't trust a source that has not editorial standard. Yes Ditto ✘ No
No The lack of editorial integrity coupled with the lack of byline here makes it difficult to believe this is a reliable publication. No Ditto ✘ No
No Ditto above. ✘ No
No need of assessing this, adds no pinch of salt to notability. ? Unknown
Yes No Though per this, but at the end this is unbylined and I would not consider it reliable in this case. No Ditto. ✘ No
? Unknown
No Ditto above. No ✘ No
Yes Yes No ✘ No
No No ✘ No
Yes No No ✘ No
No Interview. No Unbylined. No Fails WP:SIGCOV regardless. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Nordic Catholic Church. ✗plicit 13:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Church in Italy

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

The article that was created almost 20 years ago does not cite any reliable secondary sources (for CESNUR, see WP:CESNUR), nor any secondary source for that matter.

I did not find anything that would indicate this organisation named 'Orthodox Church in Italy' (not to be confused with Eastern Orthodoxy in Italy) would meet the WP:GNG (WP:NCHURCH).

Therefore, I believe this article should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this, I invite you to reconsider your vote.
Veverve (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will not reconsider my vote. I don't do that. The Master of Hedgehogs (talk) (contributions) (Sign my guestbook!) 16:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 18:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Curious and Unusual Deaths

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

Completely unsourced article about a television show. As always, television shows are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on third-party media coverage about them, but this cites absolutely no such coverage whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Gorman, Brian (2010-03-10). "People who met their ends with a twist". Toronto Star. Zap2it. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Curious and Unusual Deaths—which moves to Discovery Channel for its second season Friday, March 16, after a run on sister channel Discovery World—dramatizes offbeat ways people have met their demises over the years. The stories involve everything from a fisherman buried in sand to a gust of wind carrying a kite flyer into the air and a mechanical breakdown causing a man to be smothered in his sleep. Every episode tells three stories of people who came to bad ends in unlikely ways. And after watching it for a while, you might get the creeping sensation that danger lurks everywhere. ... The idea for the show came from a strange little series of books that Miazga's producing partner discovered in the Monkey's Paw bookstore on Dundas St."

    2. Genzlinger, Neil (2012-02-17). "Television Review: 'Curious & Unusual Deaths'. Spoiler Alert: You're Going to Die at the End". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.

      The article notes: "That was before I watched “Curious & Unusual Deaths,” a series that has its premiere Friday on Discovery Fit & Health. ... The salesman was struck down in midpitch on a cloudless Florida day. By the end of the segment we know that the phrase “bolt from the blue” isn’t just an expression, and that a Bible is apparently no protection against random death. The premiere also explores the departures of a scientist who worked on the Manhattan Project and a not-very-bright lawyer who worked on the 24th floor of a glass tower in Toronto. As if that weren’t enough for the easily unsettled, the show sprinkles each episode with factoids related to the deaths examined, just rolling them out there without explanation."

    3. Moye, David (2012-02-16). "Death By Lava Lamp? New TV Show, 'Curious And Unusual Deaths,' Explains How It's Possible (Video)". HuffPost. Archived from the original on 2023-03-23. Retrieved 2025-02-16.

      The article notes: "A new series, "Curious And Unusual Deaths," which debuts February 17 on Discovery Fit & Health, attempts to explain the science behind these bizarre deaths with the help of experts and reenactments. The first episode deals with the strange death of Aidan Bray, a resident of Kent, Wash., who died in 2004 at the age of 24 because of an exploding lava lamp that left him covered in blue waxy goo with glass shards embedded in his heart. ... As for the reenactment of the lava lamp death, cleaning up the mess of the blue goo was not something anyone on the set was dying to do. ... Although the deaths featured on the series are strange, unusual and weird, Lamport hopes that audience members don't watch the show from a condescending "what an idiot" vantage point."

    4. Stone, Suzanne R. (2011-10-23). "Ecologist to appear on episode of 'Curious and Unusual Deaths' on Discovery Channel". Aiken Standard. EBSCOhost 2W61808938355.

      The article noets: "The Savannah River Ecology Lab has shared its expertise with the Discovery Channel for an upcoming episode of its show "Curious and Unusual Deaths."SREL's outreach program head and University of Georgia professor emeritus Whit Gibbons traveled to Toronto for two days in late September to tape an interview for the program. The episode will focus on a decades-old incident in West Virginia, in which eight campers died after drinking from a keg of beer which proved to have a copperhead snake inside. ... "Curious and Unusual Deaths," a part of Discovery's lineup since 2009, airs on Discovery Channel Canada."

    5. Pavey, Rob (2011-10-23). "Youngsters Get Head-Start on Whitetails". The Augusta Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.

      The article notes: "A local scientist who is also one of the nation's top authorities on snakes will be on the Discovery Channel show called Curious and Unusual Deaths. Whit Gibbons, ecologist emeritus and head of Savannah River Ecology Lab's outreach program, was invited to provide commentary about copperheads and snake venom for the show, which delved into a decades-old mystery involving the death of eight West Virginia men. The show explores the bizarre and unusual, and brings in experts in various professions to comment on odd or even unexplained deaths that have occurred. This episode will air in spring 2012."

    6. Dugdale, John; Stewart, Helen; Dempster, Sarah (2010-08-01). "Choice". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.

      The review notes: "Come die with me Curious And Unusual Deaths (Bio, 8pm) Using elaborate reconstructions to explore bizarre demises - Bible salesmen struck by bolts of dry lightning, scientists frazzled by miniature nuclear explosions, a businessman caught out by a fragile pane of glass - this new series's opening episode focuses on three deaths that occurred in the workplace. What follows is a surprisingly subdued affair, with sober scientific explanations."

    7. Masterson, Lawrie (2010-05-30). "Best of Foxtel - What not to miss". Herald Sun. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.

      The review gives two stars and notes: "Macabre but fascinating, this series looks at deaths with that "what the . . .?" factor. These are some of the strangest passings recorded -- from a Bible salesman struck by lightning under a cloudless sky to the pet lover who fell into a cat bowl to a French tailor who tested an experimental glider off the Eiffel Tower."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Curious and Unusual Deaths to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the source eval by Cunard?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 12:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rupy's International School

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

Not notable. Rely on primary source. WikiMentor01 (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no independent sources that demonstrate significant coverage in the article. Madeleine (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imtiaz Ahmad

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

The actor is still in the early stages of his career and has not met the notability standards under WP:NACTOR. Maybe down the line, if he gets bigger roles, he will qualify, but for now, there's nothing to establish notability. Sources are primary or not independent, so they don't really help. Junbeesh (talk) 08:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Paul Burton

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

Massive conflict of interest. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN playing in Covent Garden confers zero notability. Fails WP:NSPORTS and according to GPTzero AI generated. Theroadislong (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is due to multiple newspapers including those owned by news quest, a large UK newspapers corporation give multiple coverage and other news sources. Newsquest is owned by the American mass media holding company Gannett. It has 205 brands across the UK, publishing online and in print (165 newspaper brands and 40 magazine brands) and reaches 28 million visitors a month online and 6.5 million readers a week in print.
THanks for helping wiht this. It is appreciated. PeterLawriwBahan (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this article has too many problems. Gnu779 ( talk) 12:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Peter's argument is about the newspaper companies, not the significance of any coverage a given publication may have given to this person. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at WP:NOTABILITY. The key words are significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. From what others are saying it's the "significant coverage" which is not being met. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - The article is an attempted resume and resorts to refbombing to make his media coverage look more robust than it really is. News sources currently used in the article, when they are actually about him, are merely brief announcements of song/album releases in local alternative newspapers. Those are not significant enough to bestow notability. Most of the article's other sources are actually about events in which he was present, plus various non-reliable social media links. He has a lot of self-released music and is an active philanthropist, but he doesn't have the independent media coverage to justify copying his self-promotions here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the same results occur for Burton's stage name Tremolo A Tiempo. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are two sources from Newsquest, a well-established and reliable UK news organization, along with coverage from CTV News, a major Canadian news outlet. In addition to these, multiple other newspapers have reported on this topic, supplemented by smaller media sources.
Per Wikipedia’s guidelines on reliable sources (WP:RS), mainstream news organizations, particularly reputable regional and national publications, are considered reliable for factual reporting. Newsquest and CTV News clearly meet this standard. Additionally, the presence of coverage across multiple independent outlets aligns with Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines (WP:GNG), which emphasize "significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources."
If there is a dispute regarding the weight of certain sources, the correct approach under Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability (WP:V) is to discuss reliability on the talk page rather than dismissing valid coverage outright. This meets Wikipedia’s standards regarding press and PR and should be assessed in line with existing policies rather than subjective preference. PeterLawriwBahan (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever someone argues in this fashion, which happens rather often, I offer a personal story. I once received some brief coverage in a city newspaper because I had done some volunteer work. That newspaper was a reliable source, but my presence in it does not make me notable because that coverage was not significant. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That legal threat, in response to three words that someone added to Burton's article, clearly indicates a conflict of interest as PeterLawriwBahan created the article on behalf of his own client and is willing to sue to keep the text to his liking. Also note that the legal threat includes the phrase "our music". On this AfD page, PeterLawriwBahan's comments on keeping or deleting the article should be disqualified. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to log in when posting. It tells you in the nomination above..."Massive conflict of interest. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN playing in Covent Garden confers zero notability. Fails WP:NSPORTS and according to GPTzero AI generated." Theroadislong (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are two sources from Newsquest, a well-established and reliable UK news organization, along with coverage from CTV News, a major Canadian news outlet. In addition to these, multiple other newspapers have reported on this topic, supplemented by smaller media sources.
Per Wikipedia’s guidelines on reliable sources (WP:RS), mainstream news organizations, particularly reputable regional and national publications, are considered reliable for factual reporting. Newsquest and CTV News clearly meet this standard. Additionally, the presence of coverage across multiple independent outlets aligns with Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines (WP:GNG), which emphasize "significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources."
If there is a dispute regarding the weight of certain sources, the correct approach under Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability (WP:V) is to discuss reliability on the talk page rather than dismissing valid coverage outright. This meets Wikipedia’s standards regarding press and PR and should be assessed in line with existing policies rather than subjective preference. PeterLawriwBahan (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use AI to generate your responses here. Theroadislong (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing AI answer by User:PeterLawriwBahan Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sources from Newsquest, a well-established and reliable UK news organization, along with coverage from CTV News, a major Canadian news outlet. In addition to these, multiple other newspapers have reported on this topic, supplemented by smaller media sources.

Per Wikipedia’s guidelines on reliable sources (WP:RS), mainstream news organizations, particularly reputable regional and national publications, are considered reliable for factual reporting. Newsquest and CTV News clearly meet this standard. Additionally, the presence of coverage across multiple independent outlets aligns with Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines (WP:GNG), which emphasize "significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources."

If there is a dispute regarding the weight of certain sources, the correct approach under Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability (WP:V) is to discuss reliability on the talk page rather than dismissing valid coverage outright. This meets Wikipedia’s standards regarding press and PR and should be assessed in line with existing policies rather than subjective preference.


The subject of this article meets Wikipedia’s General Notability Guidelines (WP:GNG), which require significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources.

Reliable Sources (WP:RS) – The article is supported by coverage from Newsquest, a major UK media company owned by Gannett, along with CTV News, a leading Canadian news outlet. Newsquest owns over 165 newspapers and 40 magazines across the UK, with a combined audience of 28 million monthly online visitors and 6.5 million weekly print readers. These are established, independent sources, which align with Wikipedia’s standards for reliability.

Significant Coverage (WP:GNG) – The subject has received coverage across multiple independent newspapers, not limited to brief announcements but broader features. This level of media presence exceeds that of many artists who qualify for inclusion.

Musical Notability (WP:NMUSICIAN) – While playing in Covent Garden alone does not confer notability, it is only one aspect of the subject’s career. The article details press recognition, original compositions, and sustained activity as a musician, all of which contribute to meeting notability under WP:NMUSICIAN. The argument for deletion misrepresents the depth of coverage and ignores broader media recognition.

Proper Dispute Resolution (WP:V, WP:DEL) – If the debate is about weight rather than outright reliability, Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability (WP:V) states that sources should be assessed in good faith, not dismissed outright. Editors questioning the significance of certain sources should use the article’s talk page, rather than pushing for deletion when reliable press coverage exists.

Addressing Concerns of Refbombing – The presence of multiple sources is not refbombing; it demonstrates a pattern of independent coverage, reinforcing notability. The assertion that most sources discuss only events, rather than the individual, is inaccurate—several articles directly focus on the subject’s work and impact.

Conclusion This article meets Wikipedia’s notability standards for musicians and public figures. The sources are reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage beyond just brief mentions. Deletion on the basis of misinterpretation or dismissal of valid sources contradicts Wikipedia’s core policies.

If certain sources or claims need refinement, the proper course of action is improvement, not deletion.

Keep 🚀 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterLawriwBahan (talk • contribs) 09:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use AI to generate your responses here, GPTzero says "100% Probability AI generated" Theroadislong (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As many editors have mentioned previously, the issue isn't that the sources aren't reliable, it's that the coverage provided by the sources don't meet WP:SIGCOV. Per the Newsquest articles mentioned, one is local coverage, another is a trivial mention, and the CTV source is also trivial coverage (not to mention the last 2 sources don't contribute to his notability as a musician at all). ChatGPT certainly isn't going to understand the relevance or value of the sources, and it's best to evaluate sources in your own words instead of relying on an LLM.
That being said, I don't want to see an editor's hard work go down in flames, and am willing to extend the offer of WP:THREE. Present your three best sources for Alex Burton, ensuring that they are reliable, independent, and significant. Locating such sources would go a long way in saving the article from deletion. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 17:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...and just as I finish typing this, user was blocked over the COI concerns. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 17:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
for the sake of accuracy/clarity: legal threat implying COI, mentioned previously in this AfD. User shot himself in the foot by making multiple posts at various noticeboards accusing Wikipedia of a coordinated effort to delete their article and casting aspersions on “moderators” for “offline influences” — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 17:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about WP:SIGCOV: It appears that SCG (local), Voice, and Life Media lend significant biographical coverage of the subject, and go well beyond simply "he/this exists". That's not to say a bunch of iffy-to-crap refs and unsupported content shouldn't be removed for a better WP:WEIGHT. But that's more of a cleanup problem. JFHJr (㊟) 18:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite the COI concerns and legal threats, I initially wanted to stay uninvolved with the AfD, working with the editor to potentially locate reliable, significant, independent sources. For reasons mentioned above, that is no longer possible, so I'm officially making a delete vote since all significant coverage appears to be trivial, local, or unrelated to his notability as a musician. I would be open to revising my vote should sigcov be located. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VolatileAnomaly (talk • contribs) 18:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @VolatileAnomaly, how about the WP:THREE in my comment above? Otherwise, I can certainly understand your situation re blocked collaborator. I'll observe that if this subject is indeed notable, an article can be recreated under WP:NODEADLINES with the valid sources and without the WP:COI induced WP:REFDUMP in its history, and creation credit going to someone in good standing. JFHJr (㊟) 18:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned previously, I'm trying not to take into account the fact that the was blocked (in fact, I've had no involvement with them other than this AfD and reviewing their contribution history). My concerns regarding those sources stem from the fact that they are local publications (see category for Life media source) and don't provide a rationale for Burton's notability. In those articles I'm seeing references to his Spotify streams, Instagram followers, and his performance in Covent Gardens. There's no denying those articles provide verifiable sourced information regarding his biography, however. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 18:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, well, I don't want to monopolize or nit-pick this, so I'll follow up just once more before I move on :) We aren't supposed to source things to SPS like you pointed out, but unrelated reliable third parties definitely can, and that's their job: to stand between us and the BLPSPS. What makes it though their filter need not be discounted just because an RS made use of WP:PRIMARY. That's why we call them secondary sources to begin with. I think it's okay. And I thank you for your time and consideration and feedback here. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 18:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, now that the COI/UPE issue is no longer ongoing, what say you and @Theroadislong to draftifying and cleaning up (it gets deleted after 6 months if nobody cares)? JFHJr (㊟) 18:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would not be opposed to a draftify as a second option. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 22:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per my comments above. This is a cleanup-or-new-history question for me. A tabula rasa for this namespace would not bother me, but the reasons therefor are not informed by WP:GNG/WP:42. JFHJr (㊟) 18:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete, per comments below. Thanks. JFHJr (㊟) 01:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm really not convinced the linked sources are actually independent. They read highly promotional (and we know there is aggressive promotion of this artist) and are highly similar to boot.
    The Voice:

    His music evokes the rugged coastal beauty, the rolling hills and the quiet yet powerful energy that shaped his creative journey.


    Life:

    Burton’s music evokes the rugged beauty of the Cornish coast, the rolling hills, and the quiet yet powerful energy that shaped his creative journey.

    JoelleJay (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this really impacts independence; we have no indicia of association or collaboration between primary and secondary sources. However, an example of shitty journalism impacts WP:RS directly, and I remain open to reevaluating my judgments on them. I'll watch for more, but refrain from refactoring myself for now. JFHJr (㊟) 20:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The County Gazette is almost certainly a press release being published under a reporter's byline:

    With nearly one million Spotify streams a year, he is passionate about celebrating the beauty, resilience, and sense of belonging defining Somerset.

    He hopes Somerset (in Time) resonates with many in the community, offering a unique view on rural life and the journey of finding oneself across different worlds.

    With his new single, Alexander not only shares his personal journey but also celebrates the spirit of Somerset, hoping to connect with listeners both near and far.

    His story as a Somerset-born artist navigating various worlds through his music is one of resilience and creativity.

    I agree with Joelle that the other two sources are also probably not independent. Both of them seem like those magazines you'd pick up in a local supermarket that have a bunch of advertorials for local "creatives". voorts (talk/contributions) 01:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You've both convinced me now. I'll strike and refactor. Thank you both! JFHJr (㊟) 01:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The sources discussed above are likely neither reliable nor independent for the reasons stated by Joelle and myself. I have been unable to find SIGCOV that meets NBIO. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although it is a fact cited to a local newspaper, looking at music sites, I can't find any evidence that this subject has had over one-million streams in 2024. I realize this is a minor element of the article but it seems like quite an exaggeration. I saw figures more like 3,000-6,000. Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with editors above that there no indication of the subject meeting relevant notability guidelines due to the lack of independent coverage. RA0808 talkcontribs 16:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: What a mess of primary sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NMUSIC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pointed out by several editors. Just because you got name-checked by local newspapers, who pay for stenography, it doesn't make you notable. It's the quality, not the quantity, of coverage that matters. Look, in 2025, it's untenable to argue otherwise, because everybody has at least a basic grasp that Wikipedia doesn't include everybody. Note that listing a discography - or anything related to a living person - is valid, if it's sourced or sourceable to a reliable source, which does not include the weekly pennysaver or a commercial website. I used to be involved in local politics, and every few months my name was mentioned in the Albany Times-Union, my state capital's newspaper of record, but that didn't make me notable. There's no problem with fans editing their favorite celebrity's article; for example, I took a candid photo of notoriously camera-shy Patty LuPone and added it to her article with a cute caption (wink wink, hint hint). There is a problem with abusing a charity like the Wikimedia Foundation. I used to teach my students how to identify and use good sources, and at this point, if you don't want to learn, then it's clear that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bearian sums it above and Dclemens1971 sums up the policies above that. Not much else to report apart from the fact it has no place on Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk 12:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - you'd think with all those occupations and activities and boasting and bragging going on in that article, you'd be able to find some heavyweight SIGCOV, but there isn't. I also ran his name through The Wikipedia Library and only found one article in a regional newspaper that was basically churnalism. It also looks like SNOW in the forecast. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 12:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edge of Emotions

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

Not a notable film, fails WP:NFILM. Sources are self-published and nothing reliable to establish notability. Junbeesh (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lexmark products

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

Fails WP:CSC as a partial list of Lexmark printer models with no information beyond product category and model name nomenclature. Only source is Lexmark's product catalog. 131.193.171.109 (talk) 04:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor—-above text had been appended to the previous AfD discussion page. I am neutral at this time. --Finngall talk 05:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that over the intervening 14 years Themfromspace's point about sourcing from the prior AFD discussion has been demonstrated. This might not be, per se, a product catalogue; but it is difficult to know how to construct such a list without sourcing it to a — indeed exactly one specific — product catalogue, as the only possible source that there can be. It was how it ended up being sourced (which it was not at all at the time of the prior AFD discussion, it is worth remembering when reading the prior discussion) in the main article: a list of products with sources being product catalogue entries, only to be taken out by Wctaiwan at Special:Diff/571511813.

    Yes, there are magazine reviews of individual products; but was every product reviewed? How do we know? No magazine that I can find has ever done a historical retrospective of the product line as a whole. No-one that I can find has the E250d and the MS312dn, two random model numbers which surely any complete product overview that we could source from would have in one place, mentioned together other than Lexmark. So how does one source an overview of Lexmark's products to a source other than Lexmark? Not even Plunkett's US$400 Alamanac lists Lexmark's individual products model by model, rather just giving the general types of products in a couple of brief sentences.

    Uncle G (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not a single thing listed has it own article, so its not like other list of this type. No justification for it being here. Dream Focus 16:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for WP:NOTCATALOG. -- mikeblas (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Wikipedia is not a list of every product under the sun for any particular manufacturer. Ajf773 (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LG U830

AfDs for this article:
LG U830 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero improvement after about 18 years, since previous AFD. Perma-stub for non-notable product. Remove per WP:NOTCATALOG. mikeblas (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep (nomination withdrawn). While much of this discussion was less than helpful — indeed, sometimes hardly coherent — I can appreciate the arguments made by Andrewa (even if we initially did not see eye-to-eye), Peter coxhead, and PrinceTortoise. The article still needs massive restructuring, but these users have convinced me that there is indeed an encyclopedic topic to be found within taxonomy that extends beyond any specific usage.‎

Taxonomy

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

Egregious WP:DICDEF/WP:SYNTH. It was previously nominated for deletion over a decade ago, which led to strong backlash (note that this was a time when notability guidelines were less consistently followed and enforced than they are now). As of right now, the article is a mix of a malformed DAB/SIA page and somebody's personal essay. While the author seems convinced otherwise, sources fail to indicate that taxonomy/classification exists as an independent field of study separate from a specific discipline. What little viable and potentially useful content exists here is essentially a content fork of Classification. I think this title rightfully belongs to Taxonomy (biology), by far the most familiar and common use of the term. A proper DAB/SIA can be created for the various other uses that find themselves jumbled up in here. — Anonymous 03:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are separate enough disciplines for distinct articles. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 18:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The previous nomination mentioned earlier was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taxonomy (general). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • … and there is an awful lot of prior discussion of why taxonomy and taxonomy (biology)/biological classification are different and how the latter is not the primary subject at Talk:Taxonomy (biology)/Archive 1. It looks like we need to wake up JonRichfield, Andrewa and others. Uncle G (talk) 08:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Uncle G, Quidditch
        Just here in response to the ping. I was not aware that there was a proposal for deletion or lumping of the articles, and I regard such a proposal as uninformed, to put it politely. All I would vote for would be for the separate articles to link to each other appropriately.
        As someone has correctly pointed out, the fact that some people regard Classification, Systematics, and Taxonomy as synonyms, need not imply that there are no functional and significant different usages as well, nor that such distinctions are insufficient to justify separate articles instead of lumped discussions plus redirections.
        For one thing, in any encyclopaedia to err on the side of lumping of articles together is a greater disservice to the user than splitting terms that are distinct in certain fields. At worst such articles can be served by "See also" links.
        "Classification" can refer to any form of pigeonholing, however unstructured or arbitrary. In this sense it (generally unhelpfully) could comprehend other semantic disciplines, but at the cost of the point of the distinction, IOW, sacrificing the value of the vocabulary or terminology. To regard neglect of such distinctions as a justification for lumping the articles together would demand either an unedifyingly inadequate, or frustratingly bulky article that deals with all the distinctions in their respective contexts. More of a monograph than an article.
        Modest-sized articles with links are a flexible, comprehensive, and efficient medium that avoids frustration and confusion of any user.
        In this sense "taxonomy" is semantically richer, and accordingly more constraining, than "classification": it deals not only with categorisation, but with usually hierarchical relationships between taxa, though other graph-theoretic structures may be equally significant in various disciplines.
        In fact, before the establishment of neoDarwinism, systematic taxonomy in biology was highly arbitrary, hardly better than "classification", and books arranged organisms largely according to arbitrary individual impressions of "higher" and "lower" status on the "ladder of life" or great chain of being. Evolutionary insights replaced such naive classification with biological taxonomy, but even after the first advances, there were drastic upheavals in taxonomy within half a century when cladistics became established as a discipline. And even now, there is more to taxonomy than cladistics. But those upheavals were irrelevant to arbitrary categorization.
        And in disciplines other than biology, there are taxonomic and systematic principles beyond naive categorization, though they are not identical to the principles under the same names. Examples of such disciplines include cosmology and astrophysics, and formal disciplines such as mathematics. The associated classifications are not simple pigeonholing.
        "Systematics" takes the principle further still. It necessarily is largely dependent on taxonomy, but it deals with the underlying nature of the taxa and the mechanisms and realities that lead to, or justify, taxonomic distinctions. Even in biology alone, taxonomy, for example, does not usually refer to say, ecological or physiological considerations, as opposed to descriptive aspects, whereas systematics would deal largely with the significance of such factors in causing the distinctions. JonRichfield (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Would it be appropriate to ping contributors from the previous nomination who are still active? PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 08:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @PrinceTortoise, @Uncle G, for what its worth, this nomination already seems to have drawn a lot of attention. — Anonymous 19:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Such a nomination must be a month early, should’ve been saved for April 1. historically distinct from classification. Soldiers and disorders can have classifications without falling into a taxonomy. Needs work? Obviously. Most of Wikipedia does. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hyperbolick, yes, taxonomies exist in many fields. However, reliable sources don't appear to discuss it without connecting it to a specific one. The basic premise of this article's existence is that taxonomy is an independent field of study, which it isn't. — Anonymous 14:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Andrewa (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At very least on counts of WP:DICDEF/WP:SYNTH because the article does contain way too much material that seems to be organised in a (somewhat) coherent way. If anything, we should extend it to emphasise the broader uses (outside of biology), such as the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pragmatic Puffin (talk • contribs) 10:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pragmatic Puffin, your argument seems to be that we should... add more SYNTH? I feel your understanding of the guideline is insufficient. — Anonymous 14:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And I think that they understand the guideline perfectly. Suggest you reread it. Andrewa (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Taxonomy is certainly a discipline, distinct from systematics and classification, although these topics overlap. We've been over all this before, nothing has changed. (Which is not to say that the article can't be improved.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peter coxhead, everyone replying is missing the point of this nomination. Yes, taxonomies have been created for multiple fields, but there's no such thing as "pure" taxonomy that isn't to specific to biology or computer science or what have you. Can you present a source arguing otherwise? — Anonymous 14:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @An anonymous username, not my real name: from a personal point of view, I spent some of my academic life involved with numerical/computational taxonomy. The methods used to find groups and determine their relationships can be applied to many different fields; I recall working on aspects of adolescent behaviour – educational psychology; minerals and rocks – geology; and for a short time on smells – a colleague was interested in automated analysis of food cooking in a microwave. The UK Taxonomy Best Practice Framework says in "A taxonomy is the result of naming and classifying items into groups within a larger system according to their similarities and differences." As their materials note, there are principles underlying the production, use and evaluation of a taxonomy that are independent of what is being named and classified – although there are also, of course, things which do depend on the field, e.g. in biological taxonomy, the "naming" part has to respect the various codes of nomenclature. So, sure, there's no such thing as a "pure" taxonomy if that means a result entirely abstracted from what is being named and classified, but there are methods and principles that can be applied to taxonomy in many areas. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument is then one in favor of deletion. The article is describing taxonomy as an independent field of study, which you agree it is not. We already have articles to discuss specific uses of taxonomy and we have Wiktionary to tell readers what the word itself means. As it stands, you seem to agree that there exists no content (or content that could be added) that would not be forked from other articles. — Anonymous 17:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a complete misrepresentation of what I wrote. I said, and I can only repeat, that there are methods and principles that apply to a taxonomy regardless of the areas to which it is applied. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Andrewa (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic taxonomy should not be a red link. The article can doubtless be improved. Thincat (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You have not even acknowledged the purpose of this nomination. — Anonymous 17:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The stated purpose seems to be a mixture of redirection and recreation of the article along different lines. This is not an appropriate purpose for AFD. The nomination is of poor quality. Thincat (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thincat, I'm afraid you've misunderstood a few things, then. For one, community consensus has established that AfD is the appropriate venue for potentially controversial BLARs. Secondly, the point of my nomination is that the content that currently exists does not match any encyclopedic topic, something you have not disputed. Rather than "recreating the article along different lines", I merely tossed out a proposal for some kind of SIA to perhaps disambiguate the topic (or maybe even a List of taxonomies type page). However, all of these potential solutions would involve purging essentially everything currently on this page (which ideally would be the new title of Taxonomy (biology)), for which a deletion discussion seems an appropriate venue. — Anonymous 18:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be because, like me, they find the purpose of this nomination to be enigmatic. My best guess is that it is forum shopping in order to attract improvements to the article. As I say elsewhere, there are no tags on the article seeking improvement, and no evidence that alternatives to deletion have been investigated as required by deletion policy. Andrewa (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as major branch of science. And WP:TROUT whoever suggested deletion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, another reply from someone who has entirely ignored the purpose of the nomination. Perhaps it's time to trout those who keep voting without acknowledging the point of discussion. — Anonymous 19:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @An anonymous username, not my real name: You’ve made your point as clearly as you can. It may be time to let the rest of the community weigh our arguments with those of Peter and the others, even if the consensus is to keep the article. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 19:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. Andrewa (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the article needs improvement, tag it with the specific templates indicating the problems, and explain them on the talk page. I note that there are currently no such tags at all. See Wikipedia:Alternatives to deletion and note that this is a policy. Taxonomy will always be a controversial subject at several levels, including our own categorization efforts. I'll comment above on other aspects of this of this AfD... I'm not impressed. I'd say speedy keep except that I think that this needs to be discussed. Even if the result of the discussion is in no doubt the discussion is still valuable, and even if possibly painful. Andrewa (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrewa, what would you suggest be done? You are not assuming good faith here, and it seems you still fail to understand why I have brought this article to AfD (My best guess is that it is forum shopping in order to attract improvements to the article; terrible guess, my friend). I want deletion, not improvement. My argument can be simplified in a few points:
    1. Taxonomy is not an independent field of study. It seems everyone, even those favoring keeping, can agree with that.
    2. There are reliable sources that discuss taxonomy, but all appear either A) provide simple dictionary definitions or B) discuss its applications in specific fields.
    3. We are WP:NOTADICTIONARY, meaning we can rule out the viability of sources in category A.
    4. We have articles discussing the various uses of taxonomy, meaning that any mentions of taxonomy by sources falling into category B can be incorporated into said articles.
    5. Anything left here after such actions would become wholly redundant, because it would exist in other articles, creating a redundant content fork.
    Unless you can offer a rebuttal to any of those statements, then I will continue to support deletion. — Anonymous 21:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, it was a guess. And yes, it could be seen as questioning your good faith, which I did not intend to do. I apologise for giving that impression, it was careless of me.
    Feel free to support deletion. Just respect that others such as myself think that it's a really, really bad idea. Consensus does not mean we need to be unanimous.
    I'm not inclined to attempt to answer these arguments. I've formed the opinion that it would serve no purpose.
    But as for what would you suggest be done?, I thought I had answered that. Tag the article with templates referring to the specific problems that you see, and then start a talk page section for each of these issues (rather than just hit-and-run tagging). Andrewa (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the last time (really), my reason for bringing the article here is that I perceive its scope to be flawed in ways that mere cleanup cannot solve. Anyone is welcome to dispute this premise (that is, after all, the point of AfD), but comments that do not attempt to do so are of no help. With this final comment, I am content to let this nomination die. — Anonymous 23:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We are all learners here, and consensus can change, but I think you are correct that this nomination is most unlikely to succeed. You might consider withdrawing it in order to save the closer some time. Andrewa (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggested an outcome besides keep. That should prevent withdrawing the nomination, but I don't mind ignoring that rule if Anonymous wants the nomination to die early. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 08:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That rule reads While the nominator may withdraw their nomination at any time, if subsequent editors have suggested an outcome besides keep or added substantive comments unrelated to deletion, the discussion should not be closed simply because the nominator wishes to withdraw it.
    So no, that doesn't prevent the nominator withdrawing the nomination. I don't see how it can possibly be read that way.
    It does contain some instructions for the closer in responding to the withdrawal, but that's up to them. Don't worry, I'm sure they will read and consider your input too. Since your suggestion is in part First merge (or restore) the content to Classification, then start a move request to move Taxonomy (biology) to this title there are many options open to them to suggest, and even of they don't, there are still many options open to you. Let us first see what the closer does, and whether they give any advice on further action. Andrewa (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You claim that "Taxonomy is not an independent field of study"? Well GEEE! Hardly anything is an fully independent field of study, least of all in scientific disciplines. That is not an argument; it is a niggle. One does not need full independence to justify separate articles, just reasonable justification for separation as being appropriate for serving the interests of the user. The fact that you cannot see the relevant distinctions is not cogent.
    "...reliable sources that discuss taxonomy, but ... provide simple dictionary definitions... All the more reason for articles that describe the topics in proper perspective
    ...discuss its applications in specific fields... "Its" is the wrong pronoun: it begs the question of whether there is a single topic or concept, or several, as the case happens to be.
    ...We have articles discussing the various uses of taxonomy, meaning that any mentions of taxonomy by sources falling into category B can be incorporated into said articles... It means nothing of the kind: that would be logically equivalent to eliminating articles on maths or grammar because they respectively are discussed in various articles on topics in which they are applied.
    ...Anything left here after such actions would become wholly redundant... Redundant, and none the less invalid for the reasons given. Come back when you have studied the topics at a level that enables you to support such assertions materially.
    I have not, to my memory, had anything to do with those articles, and am fairly snowed under with Real Life, but if there is sufficiently strong demand for editing those articles into a more widely acceptable form, I am willing to cooperate with such a proposal. JonRichfield (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of largest empires. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest empires and polities on Indian subcontinent

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

Fails WP:OR and WP:CFORK. No inclusion criteria for Indian(?) empires and polities (original research). List of largest empires also has an identical topic of greater quality. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Founders Fund

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This article is an WP:ORGTRIV nightmare, all sources, even those published on generally reliable outlets, are announcements of funding rounds that this company has received, and the current History section really makes that point clear. We cannot write an article about a company if all information available about them are about their funding rounds.

The WP:TECHCRUNCH fluff is looks really COI. At best this could be merged to Peter Thiel#Founders_Fund, since some sources do talk about this company's relationship with him [39][40]. The only times we have reliable sources actually discussing this company in some depth is when they are talking about Thiel's career. Badbluebus (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you brought look good, although a good majority of them are discussing Founders Fund in relation to Peter Thiel. I'm on the side of merging this article to Thiel's page. Badbluebus (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot that talk about Thiel but they meet WP:CORPDEPTH as they are about the fund itself and discuss Peter Thiel briefly in relation to the fund. Of course every news organization is going to mention him as one of the founders despite him not being the main person in charge or even the largest VC there. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Sandstein 18:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hedwig Tusar-Taxis

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

Does not pass WP:NBIO. She has achieved nothing in her life, so she does not deserve own encyclopedic entry. Being married to a notable person does not make her a notable person. FromCzech (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is the case for many wives of heads of state that articles about them focus on what they look like and what they wear (whether they achieve anything themselves or not). The WP article on Brigitte Macron says "Her style of dress at international meetings has often been commented upon." That seems to be what is considered notable about her (and the age difference between her and Macron .....) - and gets written about. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I now added criticism from the Vatican and attacks from National Socialists including an article about Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, in which Hedwig Tusar-Taxis (called Frau Tusar) is mentioned and attacked several times. Inter alia, she was accused of being a Jew and of having stolen jewels on a trip to Konopiště together with Alice Masaryková, president of the Red Cross. This should show political and social relevance. Culturawiki (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot vote twice. FromCzech (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that relisting means this is a new discussion. Culturawiki (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is this a WP:HEY situation with RebeccaGreen's edits taken into account?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think that the quality of the article is really good now. It would be a pity to delete it. As already mentioned above, there is also a very actual source: an article written in the NÖN from December 2024. Culturawiki (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rawiyah Al Samahi

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

I don't think this person is notable enough. I couldn't find enough reliable sources to prove its notability. فيصل (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Vijay

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

Vanity page. Reliable sources seem insufficient for establishing notability. However, a WP:BEFORE does show that the subject is somewhat notable. But Wikipedia isn't LinkedIn, and it isn't clear if subject warrants an encyclopedic article. Creator has been accused of paid editing, and COI issues are a possibility as well. CycloneYoris talk! 01:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No WP:MEDIUM WP:SPS No Author works for Jamal SEO Agency Yes ✘ No
No byline and it is a biography listing. No editorial oversight. Yes ? Unknown
No WP:RSPLINKEDIN ~ WP:SPS No ✘ No
No WP:FORBESCON The author of the post is the subject themselves and is also a paid council member. ~ WP:SPS Yes ✘ No
No Directory listing WP:SPS Yes ✘ No
No Press release. Byline - News provided by Tiara by Ashish Vijay ~ WP:SPS Yes ✘ No
No No byline and WP:INTERVIEW Yes ✘ No
No Paid biography listing No WP:FORBESCON Yes ✘ No
No No byline and reads like a press release. ~ ✘ No
~ WP:ROUTINE Yes ~ ~ Partial
No WP:INTERVIEW and it looks like a PR placement considering all the evidence above. Yes ✘ No
No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Fails WP:GNG per above. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 12:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fatma Al Sharshani

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

I don't think this person is notable enough. I couldn't find enough reliable sources to prove its notability. فيصل (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Multiple independent reliable sources that cover the subject in depth (cf. WP:GNG), specifically 1 and 2. Additionally this story in the Qatar Tribune is another sources that fits that description, despite not being used in the article. The information sourced to Qatar Museums and the Museum of Islamic Art may not be independent as they are detailing works they exhibited, but they are reliable. While that may not contribute to determining notability by a strict reading of the general notability guidelines, it is important to note that a source can still be reliable without being completely independent of the subject it is detailing. Richard Nevell (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep her notability is demonstrated by her international commissions, including those supported by Qatar Museums, and the fact she is the designer of the first Arabic writing on Paris St-Germain's football strip, which is a famous international football team. I am quite surprised at فيصل's nomination, since the article has already been scrutinised through the DYK process. Additionally, فيصل seems to have nominated several other women at the same time as this. I hope due process was observed. The sources others have noted contribute to notability, but also please note Al Arab as a significant source. I have added the Qatar Tribune to the article (thanks Richard Nevell I don't know how I missed it). Please note that I am away from Wikipedia for the next week Lajmmoore (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatie (play)

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

Been tagged as unreferenced since 2016. The French wiki article is also sparse in its sourcing. Not clear this work passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a review of recently added sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, the sources provided by @MCE89 are full-length reviews of the play in some of the most reputable French media outlets. I don't think a detailed formal source assessment is really needed. There is no debate here. One can find a lot more about the play in a few clicks and MEC89 indicated it was a very big success; its 2011 French production includes extremely notable actors in the cast (https://www.lefigaro.fr/theatre/2010/12/26/03003-20101226ARTFIG00157-andre-dussollier-et-niels-arestrup-refont-l-histoire.php)....https://www.francetvinfo.fr/culture/spectacles/theatre/andre-dussollier-et-neils-arestrup-dans-diplomatie-au-theatre-de-la-madeleine_3330007.html ; https://www.lemonde.fr/a-la-une/article/2011/02/12/theatre-diplomatie-une-piece-d-histoire_1479010_3208.html (second article from Le Monde about the play....) The play had various Molière Awards nominations (https://www.leprogres.fr/art-et-culture/2012/04/02/andre-dussollier-et-niels-arestrup-s-affrontent-dans-diplomatie https://www.20minutes.fr/culture/708115-20110417-culture-molieres-chereau-favori-dussollier-valeria-bruni-tedeschi-lice https://www.rfi.fr/es/cultura/20110412-diplomacia-enrique-iv-y-suenos-de-otono-favoritos-en-los-moliere) .Etc. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 15:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Madeleine (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to 2007 AFC Asian Cup squads#Iraq. ✗plicit 12:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Abid Ali

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT for not having WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS and WP:RS whereby the sources talk about the subject in depth and length for WP:V. Announcements of competitions and results are considered routine sports reports and can not be used to contribute to notability guidelines requirements. Cassiopeia talk 00:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forensics on the belatedly offered links:
The first takes us to a routine report about the Al-Zawraa SC football club and its 2014 four transfer prospects, among whom is our subject, duly name-dropped. The second routinely reproduces a statement our player made to the media; again, it's about the team' prospects (they are good). The final one is an interview to the Qatari sports website WinWin; it barely makes it as a source. But that is literally all we have. A desert, bereft of the important necessities. -The Gnome (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 12:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Kloor

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

Reads a lot like a resume, tangentially mentioned in a few RS. Article may have been made for payment. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Live and learn. Here's what happened, and a good learning curve on this one. The article was created in 2008. It wasn't until 2022 that it was tagged for possible paid editing. With a gap of 14 years, how would anyone know it was paid editing? You see, when articles get tagged for anything, and without any backup proof, a tag is just a tag unless there is some proof. — Maile (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow me, please, to disagree with your observation about the importance of the length of time, i.e. "With a gap of 14 years, how would anyone know it was paid editing?" Well, information does not necessarily appear quickly. We might learn an article was made by a paid editor, or some other pertinent information, a considerable length of time after the article's creation, something for which I believe no examples need be given. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since subject despite the avalanche of citations, the supporting material does not stand up to close scrutiny. Scalpel, please.
Forensics: We can all agree that our subject is the first to obtain a double doctorate, per All the News That's Fit to Print, and by some obscure Russian website, for good measure - though, we must discard the dead links about that double doctorate stuff, such as this Arizona roadkill.
What else do we have? We have listings on a general theme, in which our subject is mentioned, such as this list of alumni, or routine listings of events, e.g. of speaking appearances, such as this; plus, news items that are similarly about something else and not of our subject, e.g. this report about an upcoming movie, whose screenplay is written by Kloor (mentioned once), or this one about a NASA project where our subject is listed as "workshop attendee", or a Captain's Log entry on a "Star Trek interactive science exhibit" where our subject is name dropped once, and so on. Anything else trawled up belongs to the aforepresented categories.
The strong aroma of vanity, whether intentional or not, is not a problem. After all, anyone can see there is no need for two photo-portraits or that we do not get year of birth. Nor is the fact that a major curator of the text is a kamikaze account. The problem is that we do not have enough sources. And arguments to the tune "Oh, he's obviously notable" do not wash. -The Gnome (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Whether or not there was UPE, we still need to have an outcome on this discussion and right now there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coresly, you demand from Clarityfiend to produce proof of a negative, which is literally impossible. On the other hand, refuting Clarityfiend's claim is trivially easy: All you have to do is produce sources. In so many words, the onus is on the party that asserts sources exist. -The Gnome (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. Edwards, Gavin (2021). Bad Motherfucker: The Life and Movies of Samuel L. Jackson, the Coolest Man in Hollywood. New York: Hachette Books. ISBN 978-0-306-92430-9. Retrieved 2025-03-02 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Weirder than any of those never-happened projects was an animated film that was over a decade in the making (and depending on how you think about it, still might not be finished): Quantum Quest: A Cassini Space Odyssey. Co-director Harry Kloor was a double PhD (in physics and chemistry) who had a personality better suited to Hollywood than the academy; he touted his multiple black belts in modern martial arts and his Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo sports car. Kloor wrote for the TV show Star Trek: Voyager-and in 1996, he was approached by NASA and JPL to see if he could make an educational film about the Cassini-Huygens mission (a probe, launched in 1997, that ended up in orbit around Saturn to collect massive amounts of data on the gas giant and its rings). ... Kloor wrote a script for a sixty-five-minute educational movie, called Quantum Quest, about the adventures of Dave the Photon; working all his contacts and leaning hard on educational angle, Kloor recruited an improbably high-caliber cast of Hollywood talent who worked for scale, recording voice performances for under a thousand dollars each, including John Travolta, Christian Slater, Sarah Michelle Gellar, James Earl Jones, and Samuel L. Jackson."

    2. Hevesi, Dennis (1994-08-08). "Purdue Student, in a First, Earns a Double Doctorate". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2024-01-18. Retrieved 2025-03-02.

      The article notes: "As 800 graduates crossed the stage in the Purdue Hall of Music in West Lafayette, Ind., the procession halted as 31-year-old Harry Kloor, of Portland, Ore., was double-hooded with two blue, black and gold hoods -- one for his Ph.D. in physics, the other for his Ph.D. in chemistry. ... It was nothing new to Mr. Kloor. In 1986, he earned simultaneous bachelor's degrees, also in physics and chemistry, graduating summa cum laude from Southern Oregon State College."

    3. "Doctor, doctor". People. Vol. 42, no. 8. 1994-08-22. p. 120. EBSCOhost 9408227588.

      The article notes: "Albert Einstein had just one Ph.D. British physicist Stephen Hawking, no slouch himself, has just one Ph.D. Harry Kloor has two Ph.D.'s. And he earned them at the same time. Kloor, 31, scored his remarkable simultaneous double -- in physics and chemistry -- at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., earlier this month, becoming, as far as anyone can determine, the first American to accomplish such a feat. ... The third of four sons whose father was a drapery installer, Kloor was born with both feet pointing backward and spent years wearing metal braces and special shoes. "He was just determined," says his mother, Mary Gray, 65, who remarried after she and Kloor's father divorced and who worked at various times as a nurse's aide, seamstress and bookkeeper. "Nothing ever got him down.""

    4. Quinones, Eric R. (1994-08-09). "Double doctorate makes student a star". The Herald. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2025-03-02. Retrieved 2025-03-02 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Kloor was born with a condition that left him unable to walk until age 7. He has since recovered "110 percent" and credits his father, who died Christmas Day when Kloor was 13, and his mother, who worked as an accountant and a nurse's assistant, for inspiring him to excel. Kloor wants to use his technical knowledge and creativity to work with Fortune 500 companies and Hollywood studios to increase the public's understanding of science. And he wants to serve in the U.S. Congress - though he's lived in Indiana, Oregon, California, Washington and Nevada and doesn't know which state he would represent."

    5. Hoffman, Jascha (2009-10-14). "Q&A: The space entrepreneur". Nature. doi:10.1038/461885a. ProQuest 204559150.

      The article notes: "After completing simultaneous doctorates in physics and chemistry, Harry Kloor became a space-exploration consultant and film-maker. As his three-dimensional animated feature Quantum Quest — made with real footage from the Cassini spacecraft — is previewed in New York, Kloor shares his thoughts on manned space flight and the use of prizes to motivate adventurous science."

    6. Lewinski, John Scott (September 2009). "Film School". Popular Science. Vol. 275, no. 3. p. 32. ProQuest 222952774. Archived from the original on 2009-09-11. Retrieved 2025-03-02.

      The article notes: "Harry Kloor may be the world's most well-rounded nerd. He is the only person to have earned doctorates in physics and chemistry simultaneously, and he has penned episodes of Star Trek: Voyager. And when NASA asked him for help in improving its image with young people, he drew on both of those experiences. The best way to get kids enthused about outer space, Kloor figured, was to hide their medicine in a bucket of popcorn."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Harry Kloor to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • With all due respect to Cunard's typically diligent work, I do not see our subject satisfying Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion. Let's take a closer look at the newly proffered links.
More forensics, then: The book Bad Motherfucker is about Samuel L. Jackson. And in it, our subject gets a paragraph about his (short) presence in Hollywood. So, one more link that is not about our subject.
The archived Popular Science article is about the release of the William Shatner-starring film Quantum Quest, for which Kloor is interviewed.
The New York Times' article relates the one event for which our subject is known, i.e. the double PhD. We already have tons of that pyrotechnic. Typical WP:BIO1E. I made sure to point out that almost all extant links point to that one, singular event. But, still, we are presented with more, e.g. the 1994 People magazine, another NYT article, and one more from the Herald. All dated 1994, unsurprisingly. Well, for the umpteenth time, no one disputes the 1994 double-PhD award! It's a fact. But can the recipient get a Wikipedia article on the basis of that one achievement?
So, apologies to my esteemed colleague, but "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" does not suffice. The "significant coverage" must, above all else, be about our subject. And we do not have that; not in the quality and quantity required. -The Gnome (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 01:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zizians

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

Per this discussion at the talk page. Probably best to blow everything up and start all over again. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 01:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as creator of discussion, this is less a "TNT" case and more "no one here has been convicted, so it is impossible to write an article that is not a WP:BLPCRIME violation, especially since it is named after a BLP". If other people agree with me (doubtful, given past discussions on this topic, and how vague BLPCRIME is) an alternative could be draftifiying this until people are convicted. We aren't banned from naming people accused but not convicted of crimes, but the fact it involves these dubious group affiliations and is named after one make it worse. There is not one clear perpetrator there are a bunch of different people who may well have every different convictions and results.
I think this article was not a BLP violation when it was on Maland's death, as the perpetrator of that was dead - but then it was eclipsed by the notability of the group. It would be less of a BLPCRIME violation if it was describing the group and its beliefs, but consensus has repeatedly come to removing that material because it was undue weight (and also because the person adding it had very obvious POV issues). I fully expect this to be closed as keep but the BLP problems need to be addressed. Something should be done, I am not sure if that something is deletion, but this is not good. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PARAKANYAA, that makes more sense. Should I close this AfD and request a RM to refocus this article's subject back to Maland's killing? — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 01:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LunaEclipse Unsure - the notability of that was definitely eclipsed by the group even if it was less problematic like that I'm not even sure we can we cover the Maland killing without it being about the other Zizians? Everything is not settled right now so I don't know. I think this AfD was a bit hasty (no offense intended, you are clearly doing it in good faith to improve the encyclopedia) and there may be other ways to solve the issues right now besides deletion.
So maybe withdraw but I hope other people participate in the talk page discussion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Jassim

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT for not having WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS and WP:RS whereby the sources talk about the subject in depth and length for WP:V. Announcements of competitions and results are considered routine sports reports and can not be used to contribute to notability guidelines requirements. Cassiopeia talk 00:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undergraduate Student Government at Stony Brook University

AfDs for this article:
Undergraduate Student Government at Stony Brook University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is on a student government for undergraduates at Stony Brook University. First things first, a WP:SIRS check of the sources disqualifies nearly every single one, including "thinksb", a now-defunct student-run blogging publication, and The Statesmen, which is the student-run publication of SBU. It doesn't take much time to realize the subject undoubtedly does not pass WP:SIGCOV — it lacks widespread coverage in secondary sources and, more importantly, the required independent and significant coverage needed to establish notability. Previous editors in a previous AfD rightly pointed out that this particular organization is not so different from all the other student-run organizations at similar universities. This article was created in 2010 by a WP:SPA, as are most of the contributors.  GuardianH  00:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. doesn't have enough proper sources to establish notability. Darkm777 (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Allikas: Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2025_March_1
No tags for this post.