< February 20 February 22 >

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 redirect‎ to Udmurt alphabets. ✗plicit 00:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Che Sha

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

I doubt this letter is a notable topic on its own. It is already mentioned in Udmurt alphabets. This article contains no relevant sourced content to be merged into Udmurt alphabets. Janhrach (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Iraq international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar Gaiym

Ammar Gaiym (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.c Cassiopeia talk 23:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Iraq international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salim Hussein

Salim Hussein (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 23:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 00:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who the 'Ell Is Tauriel?

Who the 'Ell Is Tauriel? (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 do not believe this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This article should be deleted or merged into Tauriel. TheSwamphen (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not meeting WP:GNG, without any reliable secondary sources. The reference to this video within Tauriel appears to be WP:UNDO in reflecting the overall fan reaction based on what I could find. In digging into the sources you find "go viral after more than 11,000 people watched the offering"[1] and that the song was played "in the makeshift Filk concert hall" instead of what was portrayed being a hired performer for the convention. Matthew Yeager (talk) 07:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Iraq international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ous Ibrahim

Ous Ibrahim (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 23:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 23:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isobel Lang

Isobel Lang (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 valid sources, fails WP:NBIO ProtobowlAddict uwu! (talk | contributions) 22:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Iraq international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wissam Kadhim

Wissam Kadhim (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 22:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 23:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weyhill Preparatory School

Weyhill Preparatory 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)

Non-notable school, basically no reliable sources. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. ProtobowlAddict uwu! (talk | contributions) 22:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don Juan in Hell (film)

Don Juan in Hell (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)

Not clear that this passes WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Relies entirely on primary materials and IMDb.4meter4 (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 23:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yadah (musician)

Yadah (musician) (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 singer meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline WP:GNG or WP:BIO, or the specific notability criteria for musicians outlined in Notability (music) WP:MUSIC.

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No The exact same article as the Independent article If two different publications are publishing the same articles then clearly editorial standars are not a priority for either organisation ~ Some. But is it objective? ✘ No
No Appears to be a listicle blog No Appears to be paid promotion ~ It gives us a bit more biographical information but not enough for an engaging encyclopaedia entry ✘ No
No Press-kit photos and press release. Appears to be a website that specifically promotes up and coming artists. No Not frenqunelty cited on Wikipedia and no consensus on its reliability is available ~ It's hard to separate facts when they're presented as puffery ✘ No
No Repeat of source one interview No clear consensus on this sources's reliability ~ See my earlier comment ✘ No
dead link N/A N/A ? Unknown
The exact same article as the Guadian NG article If two different publications are publishing the same articles then clearly editorial standars are not a priority for either organisation ~ Significant of not, it's been lifted from a digital press kit. ? Unknown
No buy link for Apple Music No buy link for Apple Music No It's a buy link ✘ No
No buy link for Apple Music No buy link for Apple Music No See above ✘ No
No Another Apple music link. See above No See bove No See above ✘ No
Dead link/404 Dead link/404 Dead link/404 ? Unknown
No Another buy link No Just a buy link No Literally just a stream of one of her songs with the option to buy it ✘ No
No Routine press announcement about a new release ~ Confirms the song's existence but does not establish notability No Only a few lines ✘ No
No Free MP3 download link No just a DL link No Only a few lines about the song ✘ No
No Routine press Only cited on this article therefore nothing approaching a consensus on its notability No Just a few lines about the song again ✘ No
No buy link for the apple music store No see above No see above ✘ No
No link for the apple music store No link for the apple music store No link for the apple music store ✘ No
No Labelled as an advertisment and the duplicate source that appears in This Day below this confims that its just a paid reprint Not clear but I have noted that they have publiushed the same articles as the Guardian NG previously. ~ Has more depth than the buy links ✘ No
No Lo and behold its the exact same article as the Independent article listed in the previous source No Lo and behold its the exact same article as the Independent article listed in the previous source ~ Maybe but undermined by the syndication with other Nigerian newspapers ✘ No
No Routine announcement about an awards ceremony No No on-wiki consensus No Just a mention ✘ No
No Nominations listing ~ Could be used in an axiomatic sense but there's no on-wiki consensus on this publication's reliability as far as I am aware No Just a list of names ✘ No
No Awards announment No Only cited in this article No Just a mention ✘ 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}}.

As you can see the available sources provide only superficial information about Yadah's career and works. Most of the sources lack the reputations for editorial standards and there are even social media links masquerading as inline citations. Personal websites and social media platforms are not independent and therefore cannot count towards GNG. The same goes for republished press releases that just give routine announcements.

In terms of the WP:MUSIC WP:SNG I have created the following WikiTable to illustrate how they do not meet any of the WP:SNG criteria for musicians. {| class="wikitable" |+ Assessment Against WP:MUSIC Criteria |- ! WP:MUSIC Criterion !! Meets Criterion? !! Explanation |- | Has released two or more albums on a major record label || No || No evidence of a contract with a major label (e.g., Sony, Universal, Warner). |- | Has had multiple national charting hits || No || No known placements on major national music charts. |- | Has had a certified gold or platinum record || No || No sales certifications from RIAA, BPI, or equivalent bodies. |- | Has won a major national or international music award || No || No evidence of major industry-recognized awards. |- | Has had multiple significant reviews in reliable sources || No || No detailed analysis or critique in reputable music journalism sources. |- | Has been the subject of multiple, in-depth features in reliable sources || No || Only brief mentions and promotional content found. |- | Has performed at notable music festivals or large-scale events || No || No evidence of performances at globally recognized festivals (e.g., Coachella, Glastonbury). |- | Has had a substantial influence on a notable music genre || No || No evidence of significant influence on the music industry. |}

Based on the current assessment, the article on Yadah does not meet the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG), Notability (people) (WP:BIO), or the specific criteria outlined in **Notability (music) (WP:MUSIC) due to insufficient significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Therefore, it is recommended that the article be considered for deletion. 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 21:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC) 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 21:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC) Indefinitely blocked for disruption, UPE, use of LLM and suspected sock puppetry.--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC) [reply]

*:Thank you. I really did try to find a way that we could keep this article because her music is wonderful and I appreciate her voice. However, my search for reasons to keep this article only turns up more reasons to delete it. I honestly thought I was losing my mind for a minute or two there. 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 10:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC) *Comment I would like to apologise for the hideous source table that accompanies this nomination. I have been very unwell lately, I haven't had much sleep and I messed it up. I have fixed the error with a new sandbox-tested source table. If there's anything else that I can do to fix the mistake or help illustrate my point then I am happy to do it.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 10:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. A procedural close of a disruptive nomination. (non-admin closure) Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Thompson (musician)

Victor Thompson (musician) (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 nothing that supports WP:MUSIC here and certainly nothing approaching WP:GNG because there is no significant, independent, in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability, and the subject does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:MUSIC. See the source assessment table below. Independent sources are not present here because the sources are routine announcements usually lifted from press releases.

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No music distribution and publishing service No No on-wiki consensus but it's lack of independence says no No Just a few lines of copy ✘ No
No Interview marked as advertisement ~ A subject can never be a wholly reliable source for themselve due to the human condition's inherent cognitive biases No Not really, there's no critical analysis ✘ No
~ Appears to be promoting a new release No Any publication that publishes sentences like, "he has curved a niche for himself in the much competitive music industry." probably doesn't take it's editorial standards seriously. They haven't even proofread their copy so how can we rely on this pulication to check its facts? No Given that this has not been written by a professional journalist I don't think it could count as significant. ✘ No
No Link to a music video No Not a secondary source No No secondary analysis ✘ No
No Blog post No The consensus with blog is that they are generally unreliable and with sentences like "He was one of the contestant in The Voice Nigeria Season 2 in South Africa." it's easy to see why No It would need to be written by a professional writer or journalist to count as SigCov ✘ No
It appears to just be a site that hosts rather hagiographic sounding biographies. No No on wiki-discussion, yet. Difficult to tell with further inquiry ✘ No
Interview marked as an advertisement ~ Because this is marked as an advert we can't say that this particlar article is a reliable source although the publication might be reliable contingent on an on-wikiconsensus. Then again, that first sentence says to me that their editorial policies aren't that robust. See excerpt below ~ It depends on the definition of significant. But with the hyperbole cranked up to 13 it's hard to tell if it's intended to be significant or just tongue in cheek ? Unknown
No Marked as an advertisement No We can't base Wikipedia's content on adverts because then WP will end up with loads of promo pieces No It's mostly an interview, it's marked as an advert and with sentences like "Mr. Thompson, while speaking during media chat with journalists" journalistic or editorial standards are clearly not this puclication's number one priority ✘ No
Page containing various music vieos with little text - primary No Not relaible for establishing notability No Just a line or two ✘ No
No Link to a music hosting site No Doesn't appear to be. No on-wiki consensus No Just a line or two ✘ No
Relationship between subject and publication is not immediately clear No Regarding resounding Nigerian praise and worship songs, Nigeria ranks among the top countries with many worship song artists in Africa.... Doesn't sound like the verbiage of a reliable source for Wikipedia to me. No Not clear how this relates to the subject ✘ No
Yes Billboard chart Yes Safe to assume that Billboard is reliable No Just a chart listing page ✘ No
No clear indication of how this chart is aggregated. No on-wiki consensus as far as I am aware No just a name, some stats and a graph ✘ No
~ Another chart website ~ Difficult to judge No Just a chart ✘ No
No Appears to be aggregated from a press release because it resembles some of the other sources. The word order has just been changed around a bit. No No on Wiki consensus but this piece's prose don't scream reliable to me. No Just a few lines with some unusual sounding direct quotes ✘ No
Sensational piece hyping up The Headies No Wikipedia's entry about the publication is in bad standing. Doesn't cover subject with any objective analysis No Not immediately clear if it even mentions the subject or not? ✘ No
No Reheated press release about The Headies No on wiki consensus No Not clear whether it mentions the subject or not ✘ No
No Download link No Not really a written source. It's just an mp3 hosting page No Just a couple of lines ✘ No
No List of award nominees ~ Could be reliable for the award's page but not in a BLP because it's primary No Mentions the subeject but is not about them ✘ No
Yes Another award about the headies ~ It might be ok as a source about The Headies but this is not Wikipedia's entry for The Heady awards No Just mentions the artist's name. No Sig Cov or Depth ✘ No
Yes I'm going to say yes because surely no artist in their right mind would pay for a source that has a stray HTML ref in the title and a sentence that reads "Of course, history has show that such projections are speculative at best, but that hasn't stopped emotions from running at fever high levels" No Anything this poorly written cannot be reliable No Just a brief mention ✘ No
Yes Independent in the sense that this source is definitely not about the subject. Requires a community wide consensus to determine. Doesn't seem to denote any notability to the subject in this instance. No Just a name check ✘ No
~ I'm pretty sure I've already seen this text in one of the other source ~ Relaible as a source about these awards? Maybe. It depends on the on-wiki consensus. I wouldn't be inclined to use it in a BLP though No Mentions the subject. Not about the subect. No biographical insights or critical analysis of the subect and his impact on music ✘ No
~ Needs further nquiry and an on-wiki consensus ~ Maybe reliable enough to support an axiomatic fact but not notability No Mentions the subject's name ✘ 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}}.

The subject does not meet any of the criteria listed at WP:MUSIC and I have created the following table to illustrate my point.

Assessment Against WP:MUSIC Criteria
WP:MUSIC Criterion Meets Criterion? Explanation
Has released two or more albums on a major record label No No evidence of a contract with a major label (e.g., Sony, Universal, Warner).
Has had multiple national charting hits No No known placements on major national music charts.
Has had a certified gold or platinum record No No sales certifications from RIAA, BPI, or equivalent bodies.
Has won a major national or international music award No No evidence of major industry-recognized awards.
Has had multiple significant reviews in reliable sources No No detailed analysis or critique in reputable music journalism sources.
Has been the subject of multiple, in-depth features in reliable sources No Only brief mentions and promotional content found.
Has performed at notable music festivals or large-scale events No No evidence of performances at globally recognized festivals (e.g., Coachella, Glastonbury).
Has had a substantial influence on a notable music genre No No evidence of significant influence on the music industry.
𝔓420°𝔓Holla 21:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC) 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 21:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinitely blocked for disruption, UPE, use of LLM and suspected sock puppetry.--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep This subject is clearly notable both nationally and internationally. The song 'This Year' was a hit and topped the Billboard Charts. In 2023, the song hit No. 2 most streamed Afrobeat song with over 150 million streams on Spotify alone. In 2024, the subject was nominated for the Billboard Awards. Also, the assesament table discrediting the sources only picked a few ignoring other relevant sources from the Billboard, Okay Africa, The Headies, BBC etc. Looking at the criteria listed by the nominator also further proves that the necessary research was not made.Mevoelo (talk)
  • Keep. The subject passes criterion 2 and 8 of WP:MUSICBIO. Per sources cited in the article, his song "This Year (Blessings)" charted on the Billboard Afrobeats chart and the UK Official Singles chart. The subject received nominations at two major awards, satisfying criterion 8. I'm not sure why the nominator nominated this article and left a lengthy explanation while ignoring the criterion outlined in MUSICBIO.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 14:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Firstly, I would like to apologise for my original source assessment table. I was sick, I hadn't slept in days, I dropped the ball. I'm sorry if anyone felt that I was deliberately trying to confuse them or waste people's time. That wasn't my intention. I have spent the last few hours creating a source assessment table based on the article's sources. I have delved into the source a bit more and listened to his music. My research has placed me in a difficult position. On one hand the musician in me absolutely loves his music, I think it's really great and he's clearly a very talented artist. However, my research into the sources has only served to convince me that this singer simply doesn't have the general notability criteria with this set of sources.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 13:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary Psychoanalysis

Contemporary Psychoanalysis (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)

nn journal tagged since 2019 --Altenmann >talk 21:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep: included in major selective databases (Scopus, Social Science Citation Index), clear meet of NJournals. The article is admittedly in a deplorable state, but AFD is not for cleanup. If I find time in the coming days, I'll go over the article (but can't guarantee that I find that time...) --Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • <sigh>AFD is not for cleanup - judging from the frequency of this "battle cry" in AFDs, de facto AFD is for cleanup: I do not know any other means to attract attention. Clearly, tags do not work. --Altenmann >talk 18:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 Informant247. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salihu Shola Taofeek

Salihu Shola Taofeek (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:JOURNALIST. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Procedural close. No prejudice to renomination. Best, (non-admin closure) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 10:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kuda Bank

Kuda Bank (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 due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. These sources not provide any analytical or investigative depth which is required for WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. There are plenty of routine press announcements paraphrased from press releases about various funding rounds etc but WP requires in-depth, independent reportage. Routine coverage of financial transactions and company press releases are not sufficient when it comes to establishing notability for any organisation. These sources primarily consist of investment announcements, funding reports, or sources that do not meet Wikipedia’s reliability criteria. I've made this table to illustrate my point.

Source assessment table prepared by User:GDX420
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No Yes Profile on Bloomberg's website that any company can make. ~ The page only provides a company profile with no substantial editorial coverage. ✘ No
Yes Yes Reuters is a reputable global news agency. ~ No. This coverage is limited to a funding announcement, which is considered routine reporting. ~ Partial
Yes Yes The Financial Times is a respected business news outlet. ~ Mentions do not count towards GNG The article briefly mentions Kuda Bank in the context of African fintech but does not provide substantial or dedicated coverage. ~ Partial
No TechCabal does not have a well-established reputation for reliability on Wikipedia. Yes The source focuses on Kuda’s funding but lacks the editorial depth required for Wikipedia notability. ✘ No
No per WP:RSP TechCrunch is not a reliable source for establishing notability. Yes Reports on allegations involving Kuda’s CEO but does not provide substantial independent coverage of the company itself. ✘ No
No Launch Africa is not recognized as a reliable source on Wikipedia. No The article is focused solely on funding rounds rather than an independent, analytical assessment of the company. ✘ 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}}.
𝔓420°𝔓Holla 21:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC) 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 21:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinitely blocked for disruption, UPE, use of LLM and suspected sock puppetry.--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

::I'll fix the source assessment table but essentially I have nominated this page for deletion because there simply aren't enough high-quality, reliable secondary sources to make a tertiary source. Currently, the article is pieced together from mentions and routine press announcements, some of which might have been republished by Reuters but the source's limited scope and depth means that the article is essentially synthesised from primary sources and if we do that for every business, especially those with links to Nigeria's nascent press, most of which are post-Internet, poorly editorially moderated or not moderated at all then Wikipedia will cease to be an encyclopaedia and become a soap box that looks like an encyclopaedia. If there are any in-depth sources (not routine announcements or mentions) in reliable publications like the FT, NYT, Times, Guardian etc then not only will I withdraw this deletion nomination, I will eat my socks live on the Internet.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 21:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 23:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neddie Smith

Neddie Smith (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 spam - sourced to black hat seo (ie. Paid for adverts) and fails even the absurdly low bar for musicians here. CUPIDICAE❤️ 21:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 23:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interobject

Interobject (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)

100% advert of a certain deleted Mark J. Blechner tagged since 2018. Primary sources, with occasional tangential other refs, which do not disccuss the subject. Looks like WP:COI to me. The creator Zeke8888 (talk · contribs) plugged Blecher into numerous articles, all eventually removed. --Altenmann >talk 21:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 23:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disjunctive cognition

Disjunctive cognition (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)

100% advert of a certain deleted Mark J. Blechner tagged since 2018. Primary sources only. Looks like WP:COI to me. The creator Zeke8888 (talk · contribs) plugged Blecher into numerous articles, all eventually removed. --Altenmann >talk 21:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 23:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gitau wa Njenga

Gitau wa Njenga (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)

Non-notable journalist and political candidate. There exists no sigcov from reliable sources about Njenga, and most of the cited sources in the article are articles he wrote. Jordano53 20:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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) Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dasia Taylor

Dasia Taylor (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)

Page on a high-school student who added dye to sutures to indicate a wound infection, and was written up in a few sources. While this is interesting, it is not close to any of the notability criteria. Article was created directly in main by students in Clovis College English 1aH Honors Reading and Composition, then draftified as a standard part of WP:NPR by the nominator as failing notability criteria. Article was submitted to AfC by Brianda (Wiki Ed), and declined by Thilsebatti (also a new page reviewer) as failing notability guidelines.

Without any detailed explanation, extended confirmed user Suriname0 decided to override both WP:NPR draftification and WP:AfC declination. The criteria for notability are well established. It is not normal for decisions by two new-page reviewers to be reverted without first attempting to reach concensus, or explain why notability exists. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural close‎. Nominator indefinitely blocked for disruption, UPE, use of LLM and suspected sock puppetry. No prejudice against renomination. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 10:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chantae Vetrice

Chantae Vetrice (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 fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSIC they've received some media coverage but the available sources lack the depth and independence required to establish lasting notability. Many of the sources cited in the article are interviews or brief mentions, rather than substantial, in-depth discussions of her career.

Source Type Independent? Reliable? Significant Coverage? Notes
[Voyage ATL Interview](https://voyageatl.com/interview/daily-inspiration-meet-chantae-vetrice/) Interview No Yes Moderate Provides insights into her career and personal background.
[Jewish Journal Article](https://jewishjournal.com/uncategorized/360432/rapper-singer-says-shes-proud-to-be-a-black-jewish-zionist/) Feature Article Yes Yes Moderate Discusses her identity and support for Israel.
[Tel Aviv Institute Recognition](https://www.tlvi.org/jewish100-5783/) Recognition List Yes Yes Brief Acknowledges her as a notable Black Jewish rapper.
[AllMusic Profile](https://www.allmusic.com/artist/chantae-vetrice-mn0004616748) Music Database Yes Yes Minimal Lists her discography without detailed commentary.
[Top40-Charts News](https://www.top40-charts.com/mnews.php?page=842) Music News Yes Yes Brief Announces upcoming single releases.
[URP Podcast Feature](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/urp-podcast/id1624922730) Podcast Yes Yes Moderate Features her music and discusses her career.

in terms of WP:SNG there is no WP:MUSIC because there is no evidence of any charting singles, significant sales figures, or major awards. they fail WP:ANYBIO because there is no indication of substantial critical acclaim or significant contributions to the field. and as the source eval table shows they fail WP:GNG because while she has been featured in some publications, the coverage is not sufficiently in-depth or independent to establish lasting notability. 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 19:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC) 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 19:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. A procedural close of an erroneous and disruptive nomination. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) dxneo (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthill Music

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

This article fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for music groups WP:BAND and general notability WP:GNG. This group was only founded in 2023, has received only limited media attention, with no significant coverage establishing their lasting impact or importance.

To meet WP:GNG, they would have had to have received significant coverage in multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources. The coverage of Lighthill Music is limited and consists mostly of routine news reports about their formation and collaborations. Below is an evaluation of the sources currently available:

Source Type Independent? Reliable? Depth of Coverage Notes
Tribune Online Nigerian news outlet No No Moderate Features an article discussing Lighthill Music's mission and impact. ([tribuneonlineng.com](https://tribuneonlineng.com/lighthill-music-meet-the-leading-community-in-gospel-music-industry/))
Vanguard Nigerian newspaper No No Brief Reports on collaborations with artists like Mercy Chinwo.
Independent Nigeria News platform Yes Yes Moderate Highlights the group's growth and community engagement.
Leadership News Nigerian news outlet Yes Yes Brief Mentions partnerships for talent discovery.
The Sun Nigeria Nigerian newspaper Yes Yes Brief Discusses the group's influence in Afro-fusion gospel music.

None of these sources provide the in-depth, non-routine, coverage required for WP:GNG. The articles mainly discuss the group’s mission and collaborations rather than offering substantial analysis or historical context.


Lighthill Music also fails WP:BAND, which requires: Multiple non-trivial published works about the group – The sources available are routine coverage, not detailed analyses or profiles. Significant national or international recognition** – No major awards, high-profile recognitions, or industry-wide impact. There are no charting albums, hit singles, or significant streaming figures. There is no evidence of participation in high-profile festivals, tours, or concerts The group is newly established and has not demonstrated any impact on music.

I believe that this page should be Deleted because it doesn't meet WP:GNG due to a lack of significant, independent, in-depth coverage, nor do they meet WP:BAND, as they lack chart success, major performances, and industry influence. 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 18:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC) 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 18:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked for disruption, UPE, use of LLM and suspected sock puppetry.--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC) [reply]
  • Strong Keep: I keep wondering from your source assessment, All articles seams neutral, clearly are reliable, independent of the subject or crew and of course the multiple secondary sources some up to give an independent significant coverage, what’s more to a crew, it meets all basic points Per WP:GNG, All reliable sources WP:NGRS. Here are more sources here [3], [4] and [5]

This gospel group has been in operation since 2021 as stated but I think it’s launch was 2023 and there is no law stating that notability can’t be built within few years. Below is a reference. [1]

Alright that’s all for now. Gratefulking (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Chikelu, Chinelo (12 February 2021). "LightHill Music Partners Access Bank On Talent Discovery". Leadership News. Retrieved 2021-02-12.

::Delete per my nom𝔓420°𝔓Holla 20:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Could the closing administrator please discard this comment that user:Gratefulking has kindly and diligently struck through for me. I have elaborated on my feelings in a new comment below. 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 08:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:GDX420, You nominated the article, therefore you cannot vote twice, Thanks Gratefulking (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Sorry, can you explain what you mean by "vote" in this context? 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 20:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated this article, so you can’t drop a vote on this discussion twice that’s why I striked your vote. Rather a comment. Gratefulking (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:::I'm still not quite sure what you mean? Are we having a discussion or was there an RfC to turn AfD into a formal ballot that I somehow missed. Would it placate you if I accompany my Delete comment with a note to the closing admin reminding them that I opened this AfD just in case it isn't already obvious? 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 07:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC) :::Hi User:Gratefulking would you mind clarifying what you mean by vote? I'm still not clear on what this means in this context. 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 22:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

::Delete I nominated this page for deletion and I would like to address some of Gratefulking's points. Firstly, discussions about the perennial reliability of many of the sources at WP:NGRS are ongoing but my understanding is that the current consensus is to consider each source on a source by source basis like how we do with say The Daily Telegraph or the Mirror. If we're citing something like Le Figaro which has been in circulation for nearly two centuries, and has a reputation to lose and is accountable to press-standards committees etc then we can be fairly confident that they're going to fact check their stories and print apologies or amend the record when they're wrong. It has a center right stance much like The Times but as editors we are aware of that and can therefore parse fact from opinion. My issue with this source is that as encyclopaedists it doesn't really give us much to work with. If I've been mellowing out and strumming my guitar and decide that I would like to visit Wikipedia to read about music then I want to learn about the musician's backstories, I want to know what equipment they used and I want to know all of this within a broader ontological context. I want to learn what the artist's inspirations and influences were and what their legacy is. This article has the same issue, how does this translate into engaging encyclopaedic content without significant synthesis of this primary source material. Moreover, it's just a paraphrased version of the Guardian Source that you just mentioned which as far as I'm concerned rendered both sources unreliable. If a publication has so much disregard for it's journalistic integrity that it will happily publish spun or paraphrased articled then I just don't see what that source can really offer us. Ultimately, WP's articles are only as good as the sources they are based on. If, and I believe this is the case with LightHill Music, a Wikipedia editor pieces together a whole encyclopaedia entry via the synthesis of primary source material then they have created a secondary source via the very definition of a secondary source. Furthermore, a secondary source by its very nature posits original research because it's an exploration of the primary material on that subject. Wikipedia is not a secondary source, it doesn't publish original research or journalism, yes the editors who work on breaking stories use primary sources very carefully but the caveat is that the use of primary sources is supposed to be a temporary measure until secondary reportage emerges as we move further from the fact. This source is a dead link so you would need to find an archived version if you want me to consider it. I cannot help but feel like trying to establish notability as though it were a numbers game just leads to low quality articles that don't really evolve over time. They start as list-esque articles and they grow into longer articles akin to a list. If you feel that I've got this all wrong and there are indeed high quality sources that provide high quality editorially moderated content about this artist then I'd like to see them because I would always rather find an ATD than see an article deleted. But the quality and integrity of this encyclopaedia should be at the forefront of our minds while discussing whether this subject should be included here.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 08:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I must say you again @GDX420, you nominated this article for deletion, it’s not a article of an artist, secondly, there is no dead link, achieves where used when necessary and google won’t index all articles that ever Exists on the internet always, a dead link is a broken link or a link that can’t be accessed through public server, a dead link does not open swiftly, majority of the content has an editorial byline, and in addition why will you participate with a “Delete” vote after you deliberately outline everything on your deletion nomination, which gives a 60% Reliable and independent assessment, I’ll have to strike your “Delete”later, because you have already participated. I saw that you took your time on 21st February to nominate multiple articles for deletion within a short period of time, but let’s see what others think.
once again review the points on WP:GNG
also review Point 1, 6, 8, 11, 12 Points per WP:BAND
I’m sure this article have survived serval months and reviewers have patrolled on it and didn’t find much issues, It has met about few criteria to be included on Wikipedia, therefore I still stand to say it’s eligible unless multiple editors think otherwise. Gratefulking (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK then fair enough. Let's assess the subject against the WP:SNG for bands. SNG is prospective in that if a band has received a lot of airplay or won an award then the changes are that Kerrang! or the NME will probably feature them at some point. So while SNG is subject-specific it's still geared towards creating a quality tertiary source by combining secondary sources. SNG is not a reason to synthesise a secondary source from primary sources because WP simply doesn't publish original research. That said I am happy to discuss c1, 6,8,11 and 12 of WP:BAND to see if this article could remain live under SNG. So, let's look at c1 first shall we?
C1 of BAND - Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
  • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries except for the following:
*Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.
  • Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.
Could you please present some sources to verify your posit that this subject meets C1?
Also, can you see how the SNG at BAND is still geared towards establishing GNG? 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 22:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read “ This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries”
  • Newspaper articles are checked, print and online versions.
Gratefulking (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taseer Badar

Taseer Badar (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 doesn't match WP:GNG and WP:NBIO.

Superficial accolades and self-promotion shouldn't form the basis for a Wikipedia BLP. The overwhelming reliance on press releases, self-published notices (such as Aggie100.com), and local business media results in an article that reads more like a CV than an encyclopedic entry. The awards listed, while seemingly numerous, come largely from promotional or local sources, which raise questions about their substantive relevance and genuine impact. Also, some awards appear to be linked to organizations with potential conflicts of interest.

The citations from Bloomberg and the Houston Business Journal, though reasonably reputable, fail to provide the depth of third-party analytical coverage required for notability. Given the heavy reliance on WP:PRIMARY SOURCES and promotional material, the article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines.

In my WP:BEFORE search, I found nothing to improve the article. Rather the opposite. Pollia (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 23:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Vicious

Nine Vicious (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)

Contested draftification, no sources given at all. Doing a WP:BEFORE, I did find this Pitchfork review that might be WP:RS, but that's it. I don't think there's enough sourcing out there to meet WP:GNG. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. WP:SNOW - no need for a week long discussion here. Per WP:NPOL, overwhelming community consensus that members of parliaments at state/province level in federal systems are presumed notable. Also, nominator indefinitely blocked for disruptive behaviour and WP:UPE. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adeoye Aribasoye

Adeoye Aribasoye (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 fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for biographies of living persons (WP:BIO) and politicians (WP:POLITICIAN). While Adeoye Aribasoye holds the position of Speaker of the Ekiti State House of Assembly, this is a state-level position, and WP:POLITICIAN only confers automatic notability for those who have held significant national office (e.g., members of the National Assembly of Nigeria).

The article also fails WP:GNG (General Notability Guideline) because the subject lacks multiple, independent, reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of his career. The majority of sources available are either routine political coverage (e.g., reports on his election or legislative activities) or non-independent sources. Below is an evaluation of the sources currently cited in the article.

Source Type Independent? Reliable? Depth of Coverage Notes
https://leadership.ng/aribasoye-emerges-speaker-of-ekiti-assembly/ Nigerian political news site No Mixed Routine Covers his election as Speaker but provides no analysis or detailed biography.
https://leadership.ng/aribasoye-late-egbeyemis-daughter-emerge-7th-ekiti-assembly-speaker-deputy/ Nigerian political news site No No Promotional Routine press announcement that offers little to no significant depth of biographical coverage.
https://dailypost.ng/2023/09/16/nigerian-conference-of-speakers-elects-leaders-aribasoye-emerges-vice-chairman/ Daily Post (Nigeria) No No Routine Mentions legislative activities but does not offer significant biographical coverage.
https://punchng.com/ex-ekiti-assembly-chief-whip-aribasoye-emerges-speaker/ National Nigerian news site Yes Yes Minimal Briefly references him in passing, but not the subject of substantial coverage. This is a routine news article from the time of an event and not a secondary source
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/06/aribasoye-emerges-new-ekiti-assembly-speaker/ National Nigerian news site Yes Yes Routine Only covers legislative meetings or political statements.

The sources in the article are either not independent, do not provide in-depth coverage, or focus on routine political reporting. None of them demonstrate sustained, significant national or international coverage, meaning the article does not satisfy WP:GNG.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 18:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete if they meet WP:NPOL because they're the Lindsay Hoyle of Nigeria then how come there isn't enough independent biographical coverage to create anything longer than a stub article? WP:SNG is essentially a research guide that's meant to guide us towards high-quality secondary sources which are clearly lacking here.

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. Complex/Rational 16:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matej Kosorín

Matej Kosorín (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)

Slovak men's footballer whose professional career lasted between 13 and 220 minutes. The only secondary sources I found are Plus jeden deň and SME, neither of which cover him in significant details. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 15:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FilmXtra Uncut

FilmXtra Uncut (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)
Also nominating Film Xtra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My WP:BEFORE totally failed to find any coverage of either the original program or its spin off. I would have proded this, but it had been previously proded. Strangely a different article under the name FilmXtra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to have been deleted, but with a deletion that post dates the creation of Film Xtra. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 revert the page move and delete the quasi-disambiguation page‎. I.e., this page is moved back to Conservatism in China, and the quasi-disambiguation page now there is deleted. Sandstein 12:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatism in Greater China

Conservatism in Greater China (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 is an unambiguous POV fork of Conservatism in China. Anything usable from it should be merged back into the parent article. There was no need to fork this off. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. If the title of the article is China, it is unclear whether it refers to "mainland PRC" as "[PRC-dominated] Hong Kong, Macau and Mainland" or "Greater China". On the other hand, if the title of the article is Greater China, it clearly includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan.
I had no choice but to move the title from "-China" to "-Greater China", because Guotaian is obsessed with leaving out Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan from "Conservatism in China". Even if the title of the article goes back to "-China" rather than "-Greater China", I think it should absolutely cover not only Mainland but also Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. ProKMT (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a little misleading. I moved the title from "Conservatism in China" to "Conservatism in Greater China" in order to avoid editorial disputes with Guotaian and to compromise. So, that legacy should never be deleted, and if there's a problem, it should go back to "Conservatism in China". This article should never be deleted. ProKMT (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete
To be sure, Wikipedia is messy, but by far the most common treatment is the main article "China," with sections linked to main articles on the topic.
  • "Greater China" in the proposed article and template make no sense in relation to Confucius and the Han dynasty.
  • ProKMT wants to use "China' only and exclusively for the PRC, so creates this awkward category and suggests separate articles and templates for Taiwan and Hong Kong. It is more clear and better fitting in WIkipedia practice for PRC, Taiwan, and other area be sections of the main article.
  • The best model is in Religion in China, Military history of China, Economy of China, which all have the "main article" with sections linked to topical main articles. Literature in China redirects to Chinese literature and Chinese society redirects to Chinese culture, which both use this structure.
  • The article China includes the whole history of China, and, contrary to some statements, the portal does as well.
  • Both liberalism and conservatism in the PRC have roots in the past and connections abroad, so the article and the template need to show them.
  • Scholarship on these topics frequently crosses these boundaries.
That is, articles on X in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and so forth can be well covered under the umbrella without a new one.ch (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My real view: Mainland, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan are all "China", but Guotaian claims "China" = "PRC", it is not my claims.
1) I created the "Conservatism in China" template and an article, and it covered conservatism in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan as well as the Mainland PRC.
2) In an article created and edited by Guotaian, he claimed that only the Mainland "PRC" since 1949 was "China" and removed cases from the Mainland ROC, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan before 1949. (Guotaian even put the image of the People's Republic of China in the template.)
3) So I'm on the same page as you (user ch). Since I opposed Guotaian's destructive editing, I restored the contents related to Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan in the "Conservatism in China" article. This led to an edit war with Guotaian, which led to a 24-hour block on both me and Guotaian.
My original position is that Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan's conservatism, as well as Mainland PRC must be included in the "Conservatism in China" article and template. The problem is that to solve this, I have to wage a 2nd edit war with Guotaian even at the risk of being blocked. So I was forced to change the title of the article, and this time I'm accusing someone else of making "devastating edit" to my user talk page. To be honest, I feel a very unfair. ProKMT (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Guotaian stubbornly insists on in several articles and templates: Conservatism in China template should not attempt to cover all of Greater China, but should instead focus on conservatism within the PRC, while separate templates handle Hong Kong and Taiwan conservatism in their respective political contexts.[6] The fact that the PRC officially recognizes the ROC as "China" until 1949 does not mean that a modern template should treat pre-1949 liberalism and PRC-era liberalism as a single entity. ... Instead of forcing all periods of Chinese liberalism into a single PRC-centric template, a better approach would be to separate modern PRC liberalism from historical liberalism in China, ensuring that each is accurately represented[7]
Suggestions of excessive separation of templates (or articles), and attempts to limit 'China' to 'PRC' were all Guotaian's. When Guotaian made his destructive edits and destructive claims, almost no one stopped Guotaian, and I was the only one who undid Guotaian edits, and then I was unfairly blocked for starting an edit war. So, to avoid an edit war with Guotaian, I accepted Guotaian suggestions and edited the articles and templates, and now other users accuse me of destructive editing. Guotaian bears a large part of the responsibility for the current mess, and therefore I feel the situation is very unequal, unfair, and discriminatory. ProKMT (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Restore to "Conservatism in China" After reading the discussion below, I realize that I did not see that this article had been moved.ch (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone make it clear what has happened to these articles? The Conservatism in China disambiguation page was created in April 2024, and Conservatism in Greater China was converted from a redirect this month. The nomination states this new page is a POV fork, but a fork of the disambiguation page? Is there a third page somewhere around? CMD (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1) The first title of this article was "Conservatism in China". I covered the Mainland PRC and Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan in this article.
    2) A user named Guotaian consistently claimed "China" = "PRC" and deleted all phrases related to Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan's conservatism from the article.
    3) I cancelled Guotaian's destructive editing, restoring phrases related to Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan's conservatism in the article.
    4) Guotaian repeated his destructive editing.
    5) Me and Guotaian have repeated endless edit wars.
    6) Eventually, me and Guotaian were blocked 24 hours a day.
    7) While avoiding edit wars with Guotaian, I moved the title of the article to address Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan's conservatism in articles like Mainland PRC's conservatism: "Conservatism in China" → "Conservatism in Greater China"
    8) After moving the title of the article, "Conservatism in China" was changed to be 'redirect' to "Conservatism in China (disambiguation)".
    9) Miminity moved page "Conservatism in China (disambiguation)" to "Conservatism in China" without leaving a 'redirect' ProKMT (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to figure out the page histories, putting content to the side for the moment. Is your step 1 the creation of the Conservatism in China article this edit from 14 February? And before that creation, was there any actual article or just disambiguations/redirects? CMD (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Conservatism in China wasn't always a redirect because I remember watch listing it ages ago. But, yeah, there are gaps in the page history that are confusing. I went to WikiProject China where there was supposedly a thread about this page move but the thread was actually all about templates and nobody there seemed to have additional insight as to where a consensus for these actions was actually formed. It's honestly a big mess. Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Undo page move from Conservatism in China. This would be the simplest thing, and would carry out the needs of both sides of the argument.
ProKMT moved the page from "in China" to "in Greater China" here on February 21, with the note "I created this article to address the entire conservatism in Greater China, and I don't want to limit it to conservatism in the PRC."
The term "China" in Wikipedia usage most often includes history and in many cases overseas Chinese, such as Religion in China. This usage meets ProKMT's justifiable concern.
ProKMT has put in admirable and extensive work on the article, moving a draft into mainspace and removing the "in China" redirect here, with the message "I'm the only editor here."
I think we should congratulate ProKMT for taking the lead and laying the groundwork, as shown here, but call attention to the policy wp:own, which says "It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about—perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it." ch (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is Guotaian's destructive editing. If the title of the article goes back to "Conservatism in China", Guotaian is a 100 percent chance that he will attempt to remove anything related to conservatism in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau. If I try to stop Guotaian's destructive editing, it leads to 100% edit war. I didn't want to cause second edit war. ProKMT (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, next time, start an RfC then. For what it's worth I agree that Conservatism in China should address Conservatism in PRC, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and any other territories that are de facto or de jure part of "China" and should not just be about conservatism in the PRC. But there's always another solution beyond edit wars. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, ProKMT, now I see your point -- I got lost in the back and forth.ch (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Revert page move. This is not only a fork of Conservatism in China, but, as editors have already pointed out, there are multiple, multiple POV issues. There is no widespread, secondary sources I have found at all that make it such that "Greater China" is the best appropriate term here. This is better off simply being merged back into the main page.  GuardianH  21:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and revert page move – Move this back to Conservatism in China and delete the pseudo-disambiguation page, which only lists one other article with a title close to this one, Conservatism in Hong Kong. The disruption of ProKMT and Guotaian edit-warring all over the political ideologies of China has to stop. Toadspike [Talk] 21:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As nominator I would be fine with this. I just want to get this mess cleaned up. Simonm223 (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert page move and delete the disambiguation page. If anyone thinks the page should be moved, they can start an RM as it's clearly not uncontroversial. A talk page discussion may be in order to decide what the scope of the article should be (and that discussion might lead to more clarity about what title makes sense). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Mx.Granger, I agree. The scope of the article already covers the history of conservatism and included elements of greater China. ch (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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) Cielquiparle (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Querinjean

Ruben Querinjean (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'm not seeing how this passes WP:NATH or WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. A cursory examination of the topic suggests that it does not only fall under WP:PIA, but potentially also under WP:CT/AP and WP:CT/IPA. As such, I am discarding not only the nom, who is under a topic ban, but also the two non-EC participants here, whose arguments did not carry much P&G weight anyway. This leaves us with a consensus to keep. Owen× ☎ 15:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sadanand Dhume

Sadanand Dhume (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 notability case for this writer/columnist is unclear. They've produced one book with a couple of reviews that represent the only secondary sourcing on this page (and are mainly about the work, not the author, and so do not really report a standalone BLP). The other two sources are primary references from institutions – one where the subject works and another that gave them an award, without any evidence of secondary coverage lending weight or notability. It's unclear which, if any notability criteria might apply. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dhume writes op-eds every two weeks at the Wall Street Journal:
https://www.wsj.com/news/author/sadanand-dhume
I left the citation at the end of the page earlier. Why shouldn't editorialists be notable? He'll sure become notable after suggesting that following a policy that killed 2M Indians should be fine. Selbsportrait (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not about whether someone has a certain job or said a bunch of really hot takes. The notability guidelines require covering in reliable secondary sources, and only one out of the five sources is secondary. Two of them are his own work. Blagai (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His wife has a wikipedia page, would that make any difference. Alyssa Ayres Theofunny (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and @Venu62. The subject doesn't meet WP:N as of now. Eelipe (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR as having created...a significant or well-known work... [that has] been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. His book, My Friend the Fanatic, was reviewed in the Wall Street Journal, Far Eastern Economic Review, Jakarta Post, and Inside Indonesia among others. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of reviews alone doesn't make the book a "significant or well-known work", and while those reviews contribute to the notability of the book, they are far more trivial as sources for the purposes of supporting a BLP, which should really feature some secondary sources focused on the biographical subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are frequently kept based on WP:NAUTHOR passes on a single notable book, particularly one with as many reviewes as this one has. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Usually if it's just one notable book, we just redirect the article on the author to the book and put whatever relevant biographical info in there. I don't think I've ever seen an author bio close as keep as WP:NAUTHOR pass when there was an extant book article. The edge case tends to be when we don't have a book article to redirect to in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The timing of this AfD nomination by a PIA-topic-banned user is certainly suspect, but the decision should be based on merits. Relisting for additional source assessments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 23:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copernic Space

Copernic Space (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 and WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources are company press releases, recycled content, routine announcements on board appointments and sales. PitchBook isn't reliable, AMM source is just an interview, not independent of the subject. Junbeesh (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the subject is a marketplace for space assets and sources cited touch on the subject and its activities with even a sour e alluding to the historic launch the subject launched in the moon. So I still am fazed with the nomination. Thanks Twicebefore (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 11:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crago (Alamanni)

Crago (Alamanni) (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 think the page Crago (Alamanni) should be deleted. It was created in 2006 and has remained a stub since then. It is an orphan apart from a redirect, and an unsourced mention on the page for the German town of Creglingen. No reference has ever been provided for its one-sentence lead section. The only reference ever provided since 2006 is a brief, unsourced mention in a description of a Creglingen Walking Tour from a blog site, which is itself not a reliable source. On German Wikipedia, there is no equivalent page, and the article de:Creglingen does not mention Crago.

Outside of Wikipedia, the Creglingen town's website does not mention Crago. A Google Find search for Crago and Creglingen only gives a single, 1882, German mention, in Württembergische Vierteljahrshefte für Landesgeschichte, Volume 5 (1882), which does not support the Crago (Alamanni) page.

I propose this page should be DELETED on the grounds that it cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources; that thorough attempts to find reliable sources have failed to verify it; and that the subject fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines. Also, deletion of it from the redirect page and the Creglingen page. Masato.harada (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. ✗plicit 11:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SVOX

SVOX (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 GNG and NCORP. No results from a before search except for some press releases. Contested PROD. Justiyaya 08:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw or Speedy keep, the sources given by Toadspike is very convincing in terms of WP:GNG, especially the sources in the above comment from Tages-Anzeiger. I'll add these to the article when I have a minute. Justiyaya 23:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 08:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Malodia

AfDs for this article:
Rahul Malodia (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 is a non-notable business coach and Youtuber who does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the articles are bylined, all are from Agencies and generic bylines. Taabii (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 08:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Puntland Star

Puntland Star (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 lack of notability and independent sources. Loewstisch (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no evidence of notability and as the site seems to have been defunct for several years, no chance of any appearing. JeffUK 17:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 00:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TravelPerk

TravelPerk (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)

Promotinal routine coverage sources only about seed fund raising and similar event-based news. Not meeting NCORP Taking off shortly (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have a conflict of interest as I am affiliated with TravelPerk, but I would like to provide independent sources that may demonstrate notability such as [1], [2], [3]. Nrinlondon25 (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 00:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS Link (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)

lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources, making it fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Loewstisch (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 00:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Jojo (Bengali singer)

Miss Jojo (Bengali singer) (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 indication of notability. AgerJoy talk 09:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Expect comments from volunteers.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AgerJoy talk 06:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 05:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EngageMedia

EngageMedia (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)

10 of the 14 sources are its own website. Fails WP:ORG for lack of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 05:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pekara Maja

Pekara Maja (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)

CSD13 was declined by an admin. This article serves only to promote a business and is supported by only two sources, one a company listing, another is a tourism blog in Bosnian listing various places of interest in the region. Fails under WP:NOTYELLOW and GNG Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Article has been improved, and after one relist there is no support for deletion except for the nominator. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nail knot

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

This was prodded with the rationale: "Knot techniques don't have any inherently notable qualities. I see that this particular one has been discussed in many blogs, forums, and other user-generated sources, but nothing approaching the quality needed to be used as a reference on Wikipedia." Deprodded because it is "a pretty well-known knot in fishing". That does not address the reason for prodding or explain why it meets GNG (the infamous Battle for Dream Island is presumably also "pretty well-known"). — Anonymous 03:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

as someone who has little idea about knots even after having ilustrated more than 20 of wikipedias knots i have never seen the wikipedia page on individual knots as a "How to" but more as a reference, knots are named diferently in diferent countries and without an image or an explanation how are you suposed to compare them or understand them enough to know two names refer to same knot, when the author says well known, he means to say the name is coloquial and not official (as far as i understand it) and to be fair something not aproaching the level of quality you personaly think is needed for the wikipedia is no reason to remove it , quite the oposite is a reason to complete it and increase it. sometimes knowledge is not deep, and that doesnt make it less useful. i have recieved hundreds of mails over the years thanking me for this knot pages, from people of all corners of life and all corners of the world. Jusdt have a look how many other wikis link to the image to have an idea how many other nationalities consider this knot worthy of inclusion. and if so many people apreciate what they learned from the tiny wikipedia page i think that knowledge has its own value. seems a bit selfish on your part to just want to delete it becouse you think it is "too simple" so i oppose this removal. -LadyofHats (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in this very passionate response explains why this article should be kept according to WP:GNG. Calling contributors selfish is not the best way to win disputes on this site. While I understand you have strong feelings for this page you created and would like to right great wrongs, GNG and WP:AGF still apply. — Anonymous 15:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It’s arguably one of the most important knots in fly fishing. Instead of deleting the page, editors could work on expanding it with better sources. Books on fly fishing, knot-tying manuals, and historical fishing texts almost certainly reference the nail knot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.206.5 (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Where are these better sources? These types of comments are meaningless in deletion discussions. Before casting a keep vote, you need to find these better sources, if they indeed exist. This is an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide. I would imagine very few knots, no matter how "important" receive coverage warranting the creation of an encyclopedia article. You are more than welcome to include this type of content in a fishing blog or a site like wikiHow. — Anonymous 03:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first one, from a fishing magazine, seems like a very, very weak source, if it's even usable. Definitely not enough to establish notability by itself. As for the other two, one is a blog, and the other is a commercial site. Clearly, AI still has a long way to go when it comes to finding reliable sources. — Anonymous 16:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.texassaltwaterfishingmagazine.com/fishing/by-type/fly-fishing/staying-connected-the-nail-knot-part-1-2?utm_source=chatgpt.com
  2. ^ https://castingaround.anthonynaples.com/2011/01/book-review-the-nail-knot-by-john-galligan?utm_source=chatgpt.com
  3. ^ https://troutbitten.com/2019/03/06/loop-to-loop-is-bad-try-attaching-your-leader-to-the-fly-line-this-way/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
  4. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/1970/12/08/archives/wood-field-and-stream-buyer-who-seeks-reels-should-beware-of.html
  • General nominator comment: While doing my best to assume good faith, I would like to add that there seems to be something fishy (pun not intended) going on with this discussion. Following a rather aggressive and adversarial comment from the creator of the article, this discussion has seen confusing and poorly justified keep arguments from three IPs with very little editing history (and later a somewhat better justified response from a user who does not seem to be a frequent participant at AfD). I rarely am one to assume the worst of our editors, but I think anyone presented with the same information would be unable to deny that something about this is more than a little weird. I really must doubt that this specific knot is just that popular. — Anonymous 02:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 00:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Brismée

Jean Brismée (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 do not see any indication that they pass Wikipedia:NFILMMAKER. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems close to consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 14:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Altenmann, I found another review from The Devil's Nightmare's page and I imagine there's more from the time as well [37]. FozzieHey (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. asilvering (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Runnings

Runnings (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 one source that points to notability. Does not match WP:GNG and WP:ORG Pollia (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 14:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bosavi woolly rat

Bosavi woolly rat (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)

Never scientifically described, and thus fails WP:NSPECIES. Nothing more than passing coverage in a handful of scientific papers. Perhaps worth a brief mention on the genus article, but no more than that. I don't think it's a good idea to have articles about species based solely on preliminary news reporting, and the coverage isn't WP:SUSTAINED either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I stand somewhat corrected. I meant the current article which is still only sourced to the 2009 news coverage. Even still, I don't think we should have articles for undescribed species when they can be covered in the genus article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC
Actually I was confused. I thought this was in the journal Nature, but it's actually the website of The Nature Conservancy a nature conservation charity. I don't think this is significant coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:GNG from the BBC, CNN and Smithsonian articles, and while it has no official name from taxonomists yet, I suspect that is simply because it was discovered so recently. Sophisticatedevening (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    2009 is not so recently. Plenty of mammals have been discovered, named, published, and catalogued since then. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:NSPECIES, without a described name, this is just a pipedream. I could see draftify as an WP:ATD and WP:TOOSOON. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While this is certainly worth mentioning at the genus article, I see no purpose in giving it a dedicated article until it has a name and/or a listing in a taxonomically reliable source such as the IUCN or ASM (although the latter would tend to imply the former). Until then, we don't even really have any good evidence that there's anything to report, rather than that somebody once thought that there might be. If that changes, we can revisit it then... until then, the genus article is the best place for this and any other unnamed species. Anaxial (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep on the basis that, while this fails WP:NSPECIES, we've got coverage from the Smithsonian[38], the Guardian[39], the Nature Conservancy[40], the BBC[41], CBC[42], etc, along with several mentions in scientific publications... You can argue that it's WP:TOOSOON, but with this level of coverage I have to disagree, and I don't see much use in deleting this article when all we are waiting on is a published description and an ICZN compliant name. This is the absolute best case scenario for an article on an undescribed species: reliably documented (clear photo and video evidence from a reputable source to support its existence) with good news coverage and a likely genus placement. NSPECIES should not be interpreted as putting a kibosh on all articles on species not yet described (that was clearly not the intention behind the guideline), but rather, as a reflection of the community practice of giving all described species the presumption of notability. At the absolute least, the information in this article should be preserved in the Mallomys article (though in my opinion this is not to the benefit of the Mallomys article, especially given that the placement in Mallomys is not yet confirmed). I just can't say I see any benefit to the encyclopedia in deleting this. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: if the generic placement was uncontroversial I'd agree with merging it to Mallomys, but with it unconfirmed I'm a very weak keep. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically all of the coverage is from the same few days in September 2009 though, over 15 years ago now. There's no evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage (charity websites don't count), required for having Wikipedia articles on a topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It makes sense that an animal that has only been seen once due to its prescence in a remote area will attract the vast majority of its detailed coverage in relation to that initial discovery, but there are later mentions of this animal. Hopefully these links work, I absolutely loathe trying to link pages on Google Books/the Internet Archive but it's the best I can do... Most recently, a 2025 memoir by Gordon Buchanan, one of the members of the documentary crew, discusses it[43], and it's also mentioned several times in one of Steve Backshall's books from 2011[44]. It's also discussed in this 2013 book on extinction published by the Natural History Museum[45], this 2019 book on the Smithsonian published by the University of Georgia[46], and extremely briefly in a 2022 book on live mammal trapping[47] and a 2011 book on zoo management published by Wiley[48]. This is just what I could find through my limited online research tools, I imagine there are things I've missed. In 2021 it appears someone even published a children's picture book based on it[49]! Not terribly relevant to notability, but an interesting thing I found during my research and wanted to share, I thought it was very cute :P
My point being that this is an animal that has recieved a decent amount of coverage even in the absence of further sightings. I imagine the difficult terrrain and remoteness of its habitat are major barriers that have prevented it being rediscovered and described. Again, I think this is the best case scenario for an organism known only from a single sighting, and I think dismissing it on the basis that it has yet to be described goes against the spirit of NSPECIES and does not benefit Wikipedia readers. This is encyclopedically valuable information on a species that will be automatically presumed notable the moment a description is published, and I would hate to see it removed entirely.
For what it's worth, I would be more than happy to expand the article based on the sources I've found (Backshall's book in particular provides a lot of detail on the expedition). An alternative proposal would be to redirect Bosavi woolly rat to an article on the expedition/documentary that documented this animal and broaden the scope to include not just this particular rat, but also the other undescribed species they documented and the "story" of how the expedition was conducted. I find this slightly preferable to redirecting and including information on this purported species at Mallomys, both on the basis that this placement is not confirmed and that I feel having an entire section on a single undescribed species in a genus article looks ugly and reads poorly. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 00:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect as you describe would probably be the best course of action, if such a destination existed. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there's consensus for it, and we can decide on an article title/focus (should it be named after/focused on the documentary, the expedition, or both?), I would be happy to move the page and expand it out. Just to be clear, my vote remains keep rather than merge, but if there is no consensus to keep I would prefer a merge as described in my previous comment over deletion/merge to Mallomys. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With no existing destination, "merge" gets thrown out. I think it's the best option, though. "Draftify as ATD" is the best action that would lead to the effect of merging to something non-existent, as that can be resolved in the draft. I understand your desire to keep, but if this were a draft, you'd have time and space to make it something better we can all agree to. (Well, more of us...) - UtherSRG (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think merging this into an article on the expedition would be better than having an article on a topic about which little meaningful can be written. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, NSPECIES, and SUSTAINED. SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge/redirect (ATD) to either List of rodents discovered in the 2000s where it is listed, Lost Land of the Volcano#Discoveries, where it and the possible subspecies "Bosavi silky cuscus" are listed, or Mallomys. It would seem the "possible" species (2009 article) would have had a listing by now. The article DOES NOT PASS WP:GNG or NSPECIES The "established rules of scientific nomenclature" indicates that Kristofer Helgen, a biologist and curator of the Smithsonian Institution, or Muse Opiang a biologist with the Papua New Guinea Institute of Biological Research, apparently the co-discoverers, can (possibly did) tentatively name a new species. Apparently there has yet to be genetic analysis nor has the species been formally described (so undescribed), named, or name accepted, by a published scientific paper, so not officially recognized. It is an "undescribed putative species". All the current information is speculation, even supposition, so why create an article? After the initial discovery what has happened? 15+ years and still too soon. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We have an entire category dedicated to undescribed species; being undescribed does not mean being not notable. WP:NSPECIES says that described species are notable, but it does not say that undescribed species are not. Undescribed species fall under GNG, and given sourcing provided above by Ethmostigmus in the discussion this species seems notable. cyclopiaspeak! 21:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion is kinda-sorta leaning keep, but I don't see much of a consensus here. Ethmostigmus, if you wanted to try a WP:HEY on this, that might help?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NSPECIES. Which is very clear that WP:NSPECIES is a guideline for indicating notability, and does not imply non-notability for articles meeting WP:GNG otherwise. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 00:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Buddha International Cricket Stadium

Lord Buddha International Cricket Stadium (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)

Lacks Notability. Redirect removed without significant development supported by independent reliable sources . Rahmatula786 (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Endrabcwizart (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 04:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Greuner

David Greuner (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 autobiography and non-notable subject. Fails WP:ANYBIO. ProtobowlAddict uwu! (talk | contributions) 02:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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) 02:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Aurora, Illinois mayoral election

2025 Aurora, Illinois mayoral election (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)

Falls below Wikipedia’s notability standards. At this point, it’s a routine election that could be adequately covered within the incumbent mayor (Irvin)’s article.

Wikipedia is not Ballotpedia. Not all elections are covered, and Aurora mayoral races are not elections which Wikipedia would treat as holding inherit and perennial notability. Certainly, elections in Aurora COULD have factors that allow it to reach such note. But at this point: there are no factors that make this particular Aurora mayoral election independent notable. SecretName101 (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand a lot of your points here, but the mayor himself is notable enough for a page. There also seems to be some level of notability with numerous reliable sources regarding this specific election Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lima Bean Farmer The mayor is notable, that is why he has his own article. This election is not itself notable enough, hence why it should not. It can also be covered within his article. Routine local coverage of an election does not establish particular notability. SecretName101 (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Th majority of the coverage is from the Chicago Tribune, not necessarily local to Aurora, the second largest city in the state. Usually even local newspapers only release minimal coverage of mayoral races, which is also not routine Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lima Bean Farmer Tribune serves as a paper of standard for greater Chicagoland, so routine coverage of a municipal election in its metro area is to be entirely expected.
Tribune coverage could help demonstrate notability if it went well beyond expected routine coverage (main front page headline of the print edition, frequent in-depth coverage, etc.), but routine Tribune coverage does not really establish much beyond its existence. One would expect the Tribune to provide some level of coverage to any Aurora mayoral election simply by virtue of the Tribune's role as a paper of standard.
If this election somehow becomes more than routine, it can obtain note. But at this stage, it does not have sufficient independent note for an article.
Yes Aurora is the second-largest city in Illinois, but such a population stat does not give its mayoral elections high note. Aurora is not really a major epicenter of the state/regional politics or economy. It's a populous, but as a suburb/exburb of Chicago its politics are not at the epicenter of its region. Hence why there is not inherent note of each election: the outcomes of its mayoral elections are not expected to cause ripples that are felt outside of it.
Population does not always correlate to the inherently notability of local politics. Dallas and Phoenix, for instance, have many high-population suburbs. Those suburbs have hardly-notable mayor offices. Meanwhile there are similarly populous and less populous cities that are notable for a variety of factors, and whose mayoral elections carry some note. And even then, many such cities have master articles for their mayoral elections, with very few receiving dedicated spun-off articles. Also, different cities allot different power to their mayoralties: some cities have mayoralties that are more powerful than the mayoralties of similarly-situated cities.
For examples of cities whose mayoralties have electoral note that perhaps exceeds the mere population of the city (and reasons why their note would exceed mere population stats):
  • Hartford, Connecticut: anchor city of a large metro (47th most populous metro area), state capitol, major economic center (insurance capitol of the world, a main economic hub of New England
  • Portland, Maine: anchor city of a sizable metro, commercial hub of Maine and upper New England
  • Providence: anchor of a large metro (39th most populous metro area); state capitol and most populous city in state
  • Burlington, VT: state capitol and main economic center, with an unusual local politics (successes of third parties, etc.) --only some elections have received articles, and I'd probably advise consolidating most into a master article on mayoral elections in the city instead
  • Springfield, Mass: political/economic anchor of sizable metro area
  • Worcester, Mass: political/economic anchor of sizable metro area
SecretName101 (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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) 01:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Alton mayoral election

2025 Alton mayoral election (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)

Falls well below Wikipedia’s notability standards.

Wikipedia is not Ballotpedia. Not all elections are covered, and Alton mayoral races are not elections which Wikipedia would treat as holding inherit notability. SecretName101 (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 merge‎ to The Yorkshire Grey (selectively). (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Grey, Fitzrovia

Yorkshire Grey, Fitzrovia (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 doesn't seem to meet GNG. I could not find any reliable 3rd party sources discussing the subject except for a brief mention about how JB Priestley used to visit it. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 12:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Yorkshire Grey and allow for anyone willing to carry out a selective merge. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 00:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hayes Greenfield

Hayes Greenfield (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:NMUSICIAN/WP:GNG and I'm not finding enough non-primary/non-promo sources to support notability.

  • Source 1 – Discogs
  • Source 2 – The subject's website
  • Source 3 – Written by the subject
  • Source 4 – Discogs
  • Source 5 – Company which the subject founded

Based on the article's current sources, this was also a poor AfC accept / contested draftification. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2025_February_21
No tags for this post.