Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 20	February 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Che Sha

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Russia. 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]

Redirect to Udmurt alphabets, as this is a possible search term. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 03:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar Gaiym

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iraq. Cassiopeia talk 23:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Double league and double cup champion in Iraq, but I'm not taking it upon me to search in Arabic, so redirect to List of Iraq international footballers pending better sources. Geschichte (talk) 07:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Ibáñez

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

Tagged for sourcing issues since 2019. Has zero sources other than external links like IMDb. Not clear the topic passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A clear WP:DIRECTOR pass with various notable works co-directed or directed, and also a WP:WRITER pass. -Mushy Yank. 09:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We have articles about several notable films he directed, and one film he wrote that was nominated by Mexico for an Oscar. There is a little more biographical information at Directores del cine mexicano (in Spanish). Colonies Chris (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salim Hussein

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iraq. Cassiopeia talk 23:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese–Algerian War (1790–1813)

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

This article doesn't provide evidence of a formal declaration of war between Portugal and Algiers, nor does the peace treaty describe an end to the supposed war. Instead, this article only describes a few skirmishes between the two. Additionally, user Saguescabe gives explicit reasons in the talk page that "coincidentally" no one answered or responded to since April 2024.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is well sourced. The idea that wars need a "formal declaration of war" doesn't hold much water. M.Bitton (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a formal declaration of war is necessary to make it clear. But instead we are left with an arbitrary start and end date. There were already other skirmishes before 1790, and the result is misleadingly labeled as an "Algerian victory".

If these skirmishes are to be mentioned, they should be placed in the article "Barbary–Portuguese conflicts". Kolno (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Undeclared war says otherwise. If you want to challenge the result, then you need to do it in the article's talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about the start and end dates being arbitrary? Without context there is no point for the article to stand on. Kolno (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Algeria, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Barbary–Portuguese conflicts. A quick look at the sources does not use "war" and certainly not "Portuguese–Algerian War", so this title is inappropriate original research deserving of a WP:TROUT. It's not clear to me that naval battles in 1796 should be tied to the capture of a trade ship in 1810 like this. The main source describes "Algerian-Portuguese relations during the Ottoman period", but not an ongoing or specific war between these dates, but rather a series of confrontations. I think Barbary–Portuguese conflicts would be the best place to include this information. Reywas92^Talk 19:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This reliable source mentions the1790-1793 war between Portugal and the Regency of Algiers. M.Bitton (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A single phrase without context doesn't prove anything. Kolno (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It proves that the claim that the sources does not use "war" is not quite correct. M.Bitton (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather useless, as the source says the war was 1790-1793, yet this article has zero content about this time period except that a truce was reached in 1793, and the rest of the article was events following that. Comparing that one line to this article is a non sequitur. Reywas92^Talk 05:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who the 'Ell Is Tauriel?

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and New Zealand. 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]

Khaldoun Ibrahim

(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 23:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iraq. Cassiopeia talk 23:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It is highly unlikely that a 2007 Asian champion player would not have WP:SIGCOV in Arabic sources. There is material about the Iraq title even in other languages. Svartner (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? as per requirements indicated above. Cassiopeia talk 00:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ous Ibrahim

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iraq. Cassiopeia talk 23:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe deletion is out of the question as the person has an entry in List of Iraq international footballers, which would be a good redirect ATD. Geschichte (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In order for a subject to warrant a dedicated page on Wikipedia, it must fulfill the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. Merely being included in a list of articles or possessing links to specific articles does not suffice to establish notability. Cassiopeia talk 07:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isobel Lang

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Television. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 22:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find sufficient secondary sources for notability. Employment history is captured already in lists on the related networks. Article includes unreferenced original research "becoming one of the better known faces of BBC Weather, in part due to her distinctive red hair". I would have considered pursuing {{db-person}} or WP:PROD. Matthew Yeager (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wissam Kadhim

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iraq. Cassiopeia talk 22:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe deletion is out of the question as the person has an entry in List of Iraq international footballers, which would be a good redirect ATD. Geschichte (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In order for a subject to warrant a dedicated page on Wikipedia, it must fulfill the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. Merely being included in a list of articles or possessing links to specific articles does not suffice to establish notability. Cassiopeia talk 07:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weyhill Preparatory School

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 22:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don Juan in Hell (film)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant awards and nominations, including one Goya win for best actor. Just check the sources on the corresponding articles in Spanish and French. Can we stop these cleanup nominations, please? https://www.elmundo.es/especiales/2006/01/cultura/goya/actores/guillen.html https://web.archive.org/web/20160305044259/http://www.cinecec.com/EDITOR/premios/palmares/1990.htm -Mushy Yank. 23:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and France. -Mushy Yank. 23:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does not seems like a cursory search for sources has been carried out in advance of the AfD request. --Asqueladd (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yadah (musician)

(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 prepared by User:GDX420
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/04/gospel-singer-yadah-seeks-bringing-the-message-of-gods-love-to-listeners-across-the-globe/		Vanguard Nigeria is a reliable mainstream news outlet.	~ The article is a routine coverage piece that lacks in-depth analysis.	✘ No
https://yadahworld.com/artist/yadah/	This is Yadah's official website.		~ This is a primary source and not an independent, secondary source.	✘ No
nairaland		Nairaland is a forum with no established editorial oversight. I cannot include the full link here because Nairaland is on Wikipedia's spam blacklist	~ User-generated content; not a reliable source.	✘ No
https://www.instagram.com/naomiclassik/p/C5P_Ncft816/	Instagram is a social media platform and not an independent source.		~ Promotional content with no editorial oversight.	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGKBGNvxshk		YouTube videos, unless from reputable news sources, are generally not considered reliable.	~ No significant coverage beyond personal promotional content.	✘ 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.

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. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 21:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC) 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 21:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Nigeria. Skynxnex (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject has several hit songs and is notable in Nigeria. The nominator seems to make ridiculous nominations without proper check. Mevoelo (talk)

Victor Thompson (musician)

(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 prepared by User:GDX420
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.allmusic.com/artist/victor-thompson-mn0001846718		AllMusic is a reliable music database.	~ Provides a basic discography but no in-depth analysis or coverage.	~ Partial
https://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwmusic/article/Victor-Thompson-Presents-Debut-Album-Blessed-20231201		BroadwayWorld is a credible source for theatre and music news.	~ This is a routine album announcement with no substantial analysis or biography.	✘ No
https://music.apple.com/us/artist/victor-thompson/1591592161	Apple Music is a streaming platform and not an independent editorial source.		~ Provides no independent coverage; only a platform listing.	✘ No
https://afrogospelmusic.com/heres-why-you-should-listen-to-victor-thompson/		AfroGospel Music lacks an established reputation for reliability.	~ Primarily promotional content with no editorial oversight.	✘ No
https://www.ghafla.com/excitement-as-soulful-musician-victor-thompson-blesses-fans-with-new-banger-this-year-blessings/		Ghafla is a blog-style news site with unclear editorial standards.	~ Brief single release announcement; no significant coverage.	✘ 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.

𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 21:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC) 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 21:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Skynxnex (talk) 22:05, 21 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)

Şifa University

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD was closed as no consensus despite having no keep !votes at all. A non notable former university that was only briefly open and was, importantly, a small private university. Thus the relevant SNG is WP:NORG, and so we need sources that meet WP:ORGDEPTH and also independent as per WP:ORGIND. Such sourcing does not exist. Attempted a redirect as suggested in the last AfD, but that was reverted, so here we are. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Turkey. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging previous contributors: Chidgk1, SirBrahms and Peter James (who did suggest the redirect). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Schools, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. What the guideline actually says: "For-profit educational organizations and institutions", not all private institutions. WP:GNG is enough, but I don't think the coverage in the article now, or that found in the previous AfD, is enough for that. Peter James (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary Psychoanalysis

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Psychology, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kozhiyalam Satagopacharya

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

Kozhiyalam Satagopacharya in my opinion meets Reasons for deletion 7 and 8. It fails WP:N and WP:V.

I have made as thorough of a search as I can and followed WP:BEFORE. Thank you, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 21:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and India. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 21:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salihu Shola Taofeek

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, News media, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Informant247: As an ATD. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Informant247, per @Vanderwaalforces. This is a case of WP:NOTNOW. Most of the article is about The Informant247.CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 21:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kuda Bank

(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	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/1747346D%3ANL	Profile on Bloomberg's website that any company can make.	~ The page only provides a company profile with no substantial editorial coverage.	✘ No
https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/nigerias-kuda-bank-secures-xx-million-in-latest-funding-round-2024-10-20/	Reuters is a reputable global news agency.	~ No. This coverage is limited to a funding announcement, which is considered routine reporting.	~ Partial
https://www.ft.com/content/xxxxx	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
https://techcabal.com/2025/02/20/kuda-equity-raise/	TechCabal does not have a well-established reputation for reliability on Wikipedia.	The source focuses on Kuda’s funding but lacks the editorial depth required for Wikipedia notability.	✘ No
https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/19/kuda-and-ceo-face-allegations-of-sex-discrimination-and-unfair-dismissal-from-former-executive-per-filing/	per WP:RSP TechCrunch is not a reliable source for establishing notability.	Reports on allegations involving Kuda’s CEO but does not provide substantial independent coverage of the company itself.	✘ No
https://www.launchafrica.vc/news/kuda-the-african-challenger-bank-raises-55m-at-a-500m-valuation	Launch Africa is not recognized as a reliable source on Wikipedia.	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}}.

𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 21:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC) 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 21:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neddie Smith

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Ireland, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO are not met. The sources in the article (and those available outside it) are similar to what we'd expect for any "up-and-coming" (but not quite "there yet") artist. That we are relying on WP:UGC content (created yesterday?) from this musicbrainz.org submission is particularly telling. As is the fact that this title was created after several AfC drafts were declined pending requests for additional refs/etc. (Including Draft:Neddie Smith and Draft:Neddiesmithofficial...) Guliolopez (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Vanity spam copypasted from draft which was recently moved from main article space. User should self-nominate for deletion via {{Db-g7}} and submit draft for review. UtherSRG (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interobject

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disjunctive cognition

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gitau wa Njenga

(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. Jordano^5³ 20:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England, Journalism, and Kenya. Jordano^5³ 21:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Photography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dasia Taylor

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Illinois, and Iowa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject of the article meets WP:GNG, with WP:SIGCOV in multiple sources independent of the subject. Thus, it is appropriate for Wikipedia to have an article about the subject. As cited in the article, the subject has been covered in a BlackPast.org entry, a Smithsonian Magazine article, a Des Moines Register article, and a The Gazette article. If Taylor's only coverage was local, I would be concerned about notability, but Taylor's national-level coverage indicates to me that they meet WP:GNG. Thanks, Suriname0 (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One process comment: I don't believe the article was created in main space by student editors. Rather, it was moved to mainspace in this edit and subsequently cleaned up by User:Brianda (Wiki Ed), who is a WikiEducation staff member. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [...] and was written up in a few sources (from the nomination statement). If those sources are a couple of blogs, that's one thing. But when those couple of sources include a 1400-word article about the subject in Smithsonian Magazine in March 2021, a 6-and-a half minute segment on PBS News Hour about her in July 2021, an 1100-word article on CNN.com in April 2021, 1500 words in the The Des Moines Register in March 2023 about her being named as one of USA Today's 2023 Women of the Year, linked to from the USA Today page [2], I think the subject easily meets WP:NBIO. RecycledPixels (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think we have to be very careful about WP:TOOSOON, WP:SUSTAINED and WP:BLP1E. The writeups are about the sutures, not really about her. Sutures which changes color with pH is cute, but is it notable? For certain a single patent (if she receives it) is not enough for notability in science, unless it is at the core of a multi-million (billion) technology. Many scientists invent things and/or have patents, it is part of the job (WP:MILL). It will be years for FDA approval, and for true notability I would want to see evidence for significant commercial use or at the very least testing in less developed countries (where she suggests it would be relevant). For certain an article on just the sutures would be severely questioned without this backup. Even if the sutures become notable, that does not automatically transfer notability to her. Also, please note that in WP:NPROF#C2 there are specific statements that academic student competitions are not considered notable. Similarly we don't consider things like "30 under 30" for scientists as true demonstrations of notability. She has made a good start to her academic career, but I do not see enough as yet which is why it was both draftified and now AfD'd. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum A quick search indicates that the idea is not new, see for instance this patent. I have to ask whether there would have been notice if she was 27 or 37 -- I doubt it. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chantae Vetrice

(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. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 19:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC) 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 19:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tarab (album)

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

The article subject is not notable enough, not even in the Arab world. The artist himself is barely known. See this Google search for example. All the results seem lost and uncertain. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 18:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lebanon. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barely known, Rabih Abu-Khalil???? He's among the world's best-known oud players in the recent history of the instrument and a very famous fusion musician.... Educate yourself, please! A redirect to his discography seems a good alternative to deltion. -Mushy Yank. 10:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthill Music

(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. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 18:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC) 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 18:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 21 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]

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

~~::Delete per my nom𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 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. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 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? 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 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? 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 07:36, 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.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 08:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taseer Badar

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Pakistan. Pollia (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Transportation, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG, no coverage in independent media except self published press release. Clearly not notable. Herinalian (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Vicious

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Georgia (U.S. state). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete- completely ridiculous, promotional nonsense about a non notable subject CUPIDICAE❤️ 19:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify as clearly not ready for the mainspace. Herinalian (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability and WP:MUSICBIO. I was unable to find any additional news about this person. Maxcreator (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adeoye Aribasoye

(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
ExampleNews1.com	Nigerian political news site	Yes	Mixed	Routine	Covers his election as Speaker but provides no analysis or detailed biography.
EkitiState.gov.ng	Official state government site	No	No	Promotional	Government press release; not independent or reliable for establishing notability.
ExampleNews2.com	Local Ekiti newspaper	Yes	Low	Routine	Mentions legislative activities but does not offer significant biographical coverage.
Punch.ng	National Nigerian news site	Yes	Yes	Minimal	Briefly references him in passing, but not the subject of substantial coverage.
Vanguard.ng	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.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 18:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: {{subst:Afd2}} had not been applied here; I have fixed this. (It required an ultimately-unnoticeable workaround, since apparently the wikitable does not play nice with it.) No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: per WP:SNOW. I have never seen anyone nominate an article on a member of a state house of assembly, so this is ridiculous. This subject clearly passes WP:NPOL for not just being a member of the state house but being the speaker. Also see WP:NSUBPOL and jump to "Nigeria" for context. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vanderwaalforces and meets NPOL. Herinalian (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Pass WP:NPOL as an elected legislature. Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NPOL#1. I’ll ask that the nominator familiarise theirselves with the policy. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 21:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:POL per WP:NSUBPOL, Nigeria is ticked with green Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 05:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matej Kosorín

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NSPORT. Herinalian (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayanagara Campaigns in Sri Lanka

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

The article fails WP:GNG and is full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as none of the sources refers to any campaign name Vijayanagara Campaigns in Sri Lanka which lasted for 1386–1621 in the sources, the title itself is fabricated. Also, Most part of the article is written using AI. see Mr.Hanes Talk 14:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Sri Lanka, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the article was based on the all the expeditions sent by Vijayanagara Emperors to Enforce Tribute on Sri Lanka there isn't a single book covering all the campaigns of vijaynagara in Sri Lanka so I used multiple sources to cover all the expeditions in one single article. For example check out ummayud campaigns in India the sources didn't mention the campaign name also that doesn't mean the article was fabricated. Lion of Ariana (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Using neural network language models on Wikipedia Check out this the notice board Lion of Ariana (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the topic is notable and well documented. See the New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara [6], also [7], [8], [9]. Herinalian (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All your sources mentions Vijayanagara Campaign against Bahmani Sultanate; while the article is about Vijayanagara Campaign against Sri Lanka. Consider withdrawing your keep vote. Mr.Hanes Talk 02:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pravaig

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The references are not from reliable resources, it Lacks of WP:SIRS. B-Factor (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Karnataka. B-Factor (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a WP:BEFORE shows enough coverage from independent reliable sources to assert WP:V. Herinalian (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 15:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FilmXtra Uncut

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

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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and United Kingdom. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:08, 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]

Delete per nomination. – The Grid (talk) 14:42, 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]

Delete Per nom Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:56, 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.

Conservatism in Greater China

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 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]

This is a big mess now - I wasn't aware that ProKMT had page-moved Conservatism in China to the less-intuitive title here now. So perhaps not a Pov fork but some cleanup is likely needed. Simonm223 (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK so having tried to figure out what happened here it looks basically like a rogue page move. I'm not sure this AfD will actually be necessary though I think other cleanup work is needed. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the topic is clearly notable. This should be dealt with on the talk page or through WP:RM. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:49, 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.[10] 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[11]

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]

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]

Ruben Querinjean

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Luxembourg. UtherSRG (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wanted to try to save this one as he does hold a national record in Luxembourg, but could only find one source in my brief search. I added that one at least, if someone else wants to try to add more. Kylemahar902 (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I believe it meets GNG with sources such as [12] [13], possibly [14] (completely paywalled) as well as substantial coverage (not passing) of specific competitions [15] [16] [17]. Things can happened fast in athletics, and this guy suddenly broke through in 2024 despite little success prior to that. Geschichte (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to additional sources provided by Geschichte and the fact that, as a national record holder who has appeared at major championships, there is almost certainly coverage of him in print in Luxembourg but obviously that canmot be accessed unless you go to archives in that country. Any Luxembourgish Wikipedieans out there? Lookslikely (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with your overall opinion, everything notable about the person has happened from 2024 onwards, so I don't think we need to rely on print media. There may be a piece or two, but more so online as I only went through the first 3-4 pages of search hits. Geschichte (talk) 06:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sadanand Dhume

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Delhi, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. His only reason for notability is his recent article comparing the mass migration of Muslims and Hindus during the Indian partition in 1947 to the proposed forced migration of Palastinians from the Gaza Strip.

I have seen it many times Wikipedia being used to secure legitimacy of non notable individuals. I concur with the deletion suggestion. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 04:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the deletion too but saying "comparing" would be understating it. He has advanced a Gaza transfer on the lines of the 1947 mass migration. Theofunny (talk) 18:37, 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]

Comment. The nominator is indefinitely topic-banned from Israel-Palestine topics, "broadly construed." They should not have brought this AfD on a biography of an individual the day after he writes a controversial column on the proposal to relocate Gazans and less than four hours after that information was added to the article. If there weren't already a delete !vote on the board this would have been eligible to be speedily kept. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing any major secondary sources for notability. His book also does not seem significant or well-known enough to make him meet NAUTHOR, especially since there are only a couple reviews. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least four reviews, not "a couple". Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:38, 22 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]

Delete - per WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS. Fails WP:NAUTHOR also. Herinalian (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does it fail NAUTHOR? Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dclemens1971, I agree that his book is enough for a WP:NAUTHOR pass. Some additional reviews include those in the Middle East Quarterly, Indonesia, the London Review of Books, and the Australian Studies Journal. In addition to its reviews, the book and its ideas have also been cited or discussed a fair bit in the academic literature, including in some highly cited works [18]. I think that's more than enough for WP:NAUTHOR. MCE89 (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copernic Space

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands - not yet ready for an article, by the looks of things - David Gerard (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crago (Alamanni)

(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]

DELETE as not notable. It looks like a wild guess at an etymology by an amateur, with no sources to back it up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SVOX

(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. Justi yaya 08:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Malodia

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Taabii (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I fail to see any notability here. No relevant special notability guide is passed, and fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom , Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and SIGCOV. Herinalian (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete– This subject clearly fails WP:GNG. The ZeeBiz and Free Press Journal are paid pieces with disclaimers stating 'This article is a paid publication and does not have journalistic/editorial involvement.' The India Today mention is just a passing reference and the other Free Press Journal article is pure fluff with no editorial oversight. EmilyR34 (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Puntland Star

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Somalia. Shellwood (talk) 11:59, 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]

TravelPerk

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Travel and tourism, Germany, Spain, England, Florida, Illinois, and Massachusetts. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 11:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: The subject has enough significant coverage to meet Company's Notability standard. Found this [19], [20], [21], [22], and [23] Bakhtar40 (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I have to disagree with the nom here. Looking at Bakhtar40's sources, the first two don't count for notability, since they are an interview (not independent or sigcov) and a short press release on a funding round (not independent or sigcov). However, the Expansion article, while paywalled, looks like sigcov to me, same for the TechCrunch article and the article in The Scotsman. I think these three are enough to meet the GNG/NCORP, so I haven't checked the other sources in the article, but there might be more there. Toadspike [Talk] 07:55, 21 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]

CS Link

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Czech Republic, Luxembourg, and Slovakia. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 10:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did OP look? Loads of local-language coverage as you might expect, such as Czech Radio [24] [25], Mafra [26] [27], Czech Television [28] [29]. C 679 14:08, 10 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]

Comment – It would help if someone with the knowledge of Czech language could analysis whether the sources provided by Cloudz679 count toward significant coverage or not. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:24, 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]

Hedwig Tusar-Taxis

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited. Article composed of various original research and does not demonstrate any notable achievements of the subject. C 679 08:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her first, notable, husband Vlastimil Tusar. PamD 09:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per PamD. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant coverage of her in two sources that are included in the article, one as Further reading [30], pages 375-376, and one in External links [31] (which is unfortunately not the actual article, but announces a "New series: Wives of our Prime Ministers" and says "You can find the full story of Vlastimil Tusar's two women in the magazine Pátek, the Friday supplement of Lidové noviny." I haven't yet tried to find the Friday supplement.) There is also SIGCOV in this article from the National Museum in Prague [32]. These sources are from 2004, 2010 and 2011, so she is clearly notable almost 100 years after she married Tusar. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is an other very actual article from December 2024 published in the NÖN and listed as reference in the article on Hedwig Tusar-Taxis: Attempted murder 99 years ago. Bloody Christmas in the Hellerhof Paudorf. --Culturawiki (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per PamD is a good option. I don't understand how the sources listed above support notability. If there is such a thing, add it to the article. But, for example, the one from the National Museum only describes what she wore as the wife of the prime minister. The article in NÖN describes that she witnessed a crime, if I understand correctly. Even if it were WP:SIGCOV, remember that it is not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. FromCzech (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

~~Keep:~~ I now added criticism from the Vatican and attacks from National Socialists including an article about Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, in which Hedwig Tusar-Taxis (called Frau Tusar) is mentioned and attacked several times. Inter alia, she was accused of being a Jew and of having stolen jewels on a trip to Konopiště together with Alice Masaryková, president of the Red Cross. This should show political and social relevance. Culturawiki (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot vote twice. FromCzech (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that relisting means this is a new discussion. Culturawiki (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Vlastimil Tusar. Per nom, this article fails WP:NBIO: there isn't enough WP:SIGCOV here to merit a standalone article.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am adding more sources and more info from the existing and new sources. It seems clear to me that she was considered notable in the 1920s, so per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, she is still notable. Also, it seems that there is rather different treatment of spouses of heads of state in this country compared to, for example, the United Kingdom or Australia, and with the wife of the new president of Syria, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latifa al-Droubi. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Jojo (Bengali singer)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 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]

EngageMedia

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, Technology, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:NORG. AgerJoy talk 07:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was created by a single purpose account so probable WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pekara Maja

(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]

Delete. Nominator's reasoning could not be clearer or more valid. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References fail WP:ORGCRIT. Only able to search for English sources so unless someone is able to introduce something better I do not see how this passes WP:NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nail knot

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — 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]
- I found these:
  - ^[1]
  - ^[2]
  - ^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.65.62 (talk) 15:54, 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]

See this New York Times Article: ^[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.76.158.240 (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at WP:PASSING. Being merely mentioned by a reliable source is not necessarily an indicator of notability. — Anonymous 15:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

How does this knot differ than all the other knots on List of knots? There is precedent for similar pages.
- Boa knot
- Double fisherman's knot
- Grief knot
- and many many more
(Remember to sign your posts in discussions.) See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Notability is determined on a case-by-case basis; just because some subjects pertaining to a topic are notable does not mean that all are (although in this case, I wouldn't be surprised if these other knots do not meet WP:GNG either). — Anonymous 23:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:N and WP:SIGCOV. The article could be expanded, and it needs citations. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z. Patterson: Can you prove these statements? The comments in this discussion are honestly baffling; I don't think I've ever seen an AfD like this. Once again, if you're going to make these claims, you should actually demonstrate this alleged coverage. (I've already pointed out issues with the sources previously brought here.) I would have no issue with being proven wrong and discovering that this knot is indeed notable, but these repeated claims that this article deserves to be kept without providing valid evidence of notability are only serving to further convince me that it is not. — Anonymous 02:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@An anonymous username, not my real name: I performed an EBSCO search here. Also see Google Scholar's results here. Z. Patterson (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly better than anything else provided in the discussion, I will grant that. I'm still not sure what our policy is on the use of fishing guides as reliable sources. — Anonymous 02:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Outside of scholarly journal and book searches, I found sources such as Animated Knots, netknots, Orvis, and Fly Fishers International. I think they are WP:RELIABLE. Z. Patterson (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think they are. In this day and age, I can't imagine it's very difficult for anyone to start a website about knots. — Anonymous 02:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Keep Field & Stream, April 1974 has about 34 sentences and six diagrams about the nail knot. Field & Stream, August 1974 has 16 sentences and 11 photographs of the nail knot. And then there are the books. The Field Guide to Fishing Knots has significant coverage of the nail knot. Fishing Knots: Proven to Work for Light Tackle and Fly Fishing has significant coverage of the nail knot. Fly-Fishing Knots has significant coverage of the nail knot. A classic book from my own library that I just held in my hands, The Curtis Creek Manifesto by Sheridan Anderson describes the knot with five diagrams on page 29. I see at least a dozen other books online that discuss the knot. As for the comments above from the nominator An anonymous username, not my real name who doubts the motivations of the editors arguing keep, I have been editing for over 15 years, have made over 110,000 edits and have participated in over 3600 AfD debates. This specific knot is that popular among fly fishermen although it has a reputation of being difficult to tie. And I am only a beginner fly fisherman at best. Cullen328 (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue accepting this keep vote, as you accompanied it with clear and unambiguous evidence. This is the first comment in this discussion that has actually convinced me of notability. — Anonymous 12:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328. The article definitely needs references - Cullen328 has shown clearly that there are sources which can be cited. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Google books results. @Anonymous, I encourage you to do a WP:BEFORE check in future discussions. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli support for Hamas

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

This is not a significat topic of study or coverage. Much of the article is synthetically composed of material from sources unrelated to the article topic—which is not itself a reason for deletion, rather for revision, but from my research it appears that this is a reflection of the lack of significant coverage of this topic. Any relevant material not already there can be merged into History of Hamas. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-The article has abundant citations from primary sources. Certainly not every article cited has this as its main subject, but enough do to indicate that this is a noteworthy topic. Display name 99 (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by primary sources? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University of the Witwatersrand School of Architecture & Planning

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

I don't see why this school of a university needs its own article. All the sources from the university's website, so basically it's repeating information easily found on the web. It needs third party coverage which is lacking. Fails WP:ORG LibStar (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and South Africa. LibStar (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Brismée

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Belgium. UtherSRG (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep. satisfies WP:GNG (several old books; unfortunately I can see only snippets, so I didnt use them in the article). As well as WP:NFILMMAKER: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work ~~or collective body of work.~~ In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" --Altenmann >talk 13:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Altenmann. Entry in Davay, P. (1973). Cinéma de Belgique. Duculot. (p. 80); Sojcher, F. (1999). La kermesse héroïque du cinéma belge: 1965-1988 : le miroir déformant des identités culturelles. Harmattan, p. 238 etc..... -Mushy Yank. 00:50, 7 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 [33]. FozzieHey (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Runnings

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. From what I see on Googling, they seem to get a lot of news coverage about burglary and shoplifting in their stores. Is this odd or a coincidence? Bearian (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have seen multiple news articles in which they show Runnings opening where former retailers such as Home of Economy were. I have also seen articles on the break-in. They have acquired R. P. Home & Harvest, which has a Wikipedia article as well. Billybob2002 (talk) 22:50, 10 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]

Comment: Neither of the keep votes given provide a legitimate rationale to keep this article per any criteria for notability. See WP:Notability is not inherited and WP:Routine coverage. Ping me if better sources turn up, but otherwise, I'm leaning to delete per nom. — Anonymous 22:36, 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]

Mortar (organization)

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails WP:GNG. It does not talk about why MORTAR is a significant or noteworthy organization. It also lacks high-quality sources. It has only been mentioned a couple of times in some relatively obscure articles from CNN, Politico, and other news. Mast303 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mast303 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bosavi woolly rat

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Science, and Organisms. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't? It seems to have made it into a few books in the years since. Uncle G (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hausheer, Justine E. (2024-03-19). "Meet the Amazing Giant Rats of Oceania". The Nature Conservancy.

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[34], the Guardian[35], the Nature Conservancy[36], the BBC[37], CBC[38], 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[39], and it's also mentioned several times in one of Steve Backshall's books from 2011[40]. It's also discussed in this 2013 book on extinction published by the Natural History Museum[41], this 2019 book on the Smithsonian published by the University of Georgia[42], and extremely briefly in a 2022 book on live mammal trapping[43] and a 2011 book on zoo management published by Wiley[44]. 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[45]! 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]

Keep: Per WP:GNG, which is explicitly mentioned as an exception in WP:NSPECIES, and which the article clearly meets having received significant coverage. Zackery the Fence (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ethmostigmus. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Mallomys. Wikigrund (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it meets WP:GNG quite clearly.cyclopia ^speak! 15:19, 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. cyclopia ^speak! 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]

Keep. I added lots of information and sources, and it definitely satisfies GNG now. I'll still be adding more if I can find more information. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 19:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More information and citations added. I think I'm done now. (Edit 21:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC): keep per WP:HEY) ‍Relativity ⚡️ 20:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I ended up restructuring the article a bit, so here is the diff of all the changes I made to the article. Keep per WP:HEY. I might add more though. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also de-listed it as a stub as I believe it has more content in it than that. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added more information and an image to the article, but as I'm probably going to be editing continuously, I won't paste a diff link. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 03:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work Relativity! Great job finding all those sources, I thought I looked pretty thoroughly but you managed to dig up even more. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 00:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Buddha International Cricket Stadium

(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]

Draftify – WP:TOOSOON, but there is something about the construction [46], [47], [48]. Svartner (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this was, as the article states, formerly known as Gautam Buddha International Cricket Stadium, isn't this a page move once the name changes? Until then deletion seems the best option - we could look at redirect but we'll eventually need a move over redirect going on if we do that... Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:14, 14 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]

Draftify: as it is now WP:TOOSOON. AgerJoy talk 07:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Broad Park, Indiana

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

Here we come upon an impressive cock-up at USGS, because if you look at old enough topos to have any details, you will not see this label, but you will see an area just to the north labelled "Board Park". And if you look at the 2013 map, you'll see both "Board Park" and "Broad Park". So obviously the GNIS entry for the latter came from somewhere else besides the topos, and indeed it did: from an 1876 atlas. One has to wonder why nobody noticed that the two places are actually the same (and the "Board park" entry is still there in GNIS, though it is gone from the map), but it's clearly the case. And judging from our handy county history, the old atlas was right and the older topos were wrong, though it appears that the topo location is more accurate. After all that, though, it's still a nothingburger place: there's little there, and the history merely mentions it in passing to locate other places. It's likely just another turn of the century 4th class post office. Mangoe (talk) 03:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found Edward V. Ragland, but I cannot definitely state that the village was other than surveyed. Uncle G (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I should point out that the GNIS saying that it sourced a place, that wasn't even invented until 1893, to an 1876 atlas is an egregious GNIS error; made worse still by the fact that we can see the claimed atlas at Illustrated Historical Atlas of the State of Indiana at the Internet Archive and there's no Broad Park in Jefferson Township, or any other part of Putnam County, on that map. However, that just means that the GNIS is a bad source full to the brim with errors, which we knew. John V. Hadley has not proven to be unreliable, in contrast. Uncle G (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh dear. Thanks to 1 sentence in Hadley and 1 sentence in Baker that connect things, the books turn out to provide a fairly cohesive and extensive narrative, even if we cannot know much more specific than that this was somewhere in the east of Putnam (probably, my inference, Mill Creek Township). Uncle G (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I trust the nominator and his research into whether this was a real place or not. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Greuner

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 02:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ptenothrix Species 3

AfDs for this article:

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

No published scientific name, and therefore fails WP:NSPECIES. This as well as Ptenothrix species 4 are ecomorphs that have been identified by the springtail hobbyist community but are as of yet unpublished in a scientific journal. Brendansoloughlin (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Brendansoloughlin (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ptenothrix - see also Ptenothrix species 4 deletion discussion. To my knowledge, these purported species have received no media or academic coverage, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSPECIES. They have been identified as distinct, but there is simply no published work on them with which to establish notability nor build a Wikipedia article. Seems that researchers are working on formal descriptions for these, hopefully to be published soon, but until we get a published description or WP:SIGCOV this ought to redirect to the genus article. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Play! Pokémon

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

A division of the Pokémon Company that doesn't seem to be separately notable. I've been researching competitive Pokémon extensively and have searched this subject several times and found very little discussing them, even in passing mention. Nearly everything they do is already covered extensively at Pokémon World Championships as they act primarily as that event's organizers, and their organization of local events isn't covered at all from what I can find, bar one Inverse source discussing the role of "Pokémon Professors", which doesn't even mention Play! Pokémon at all. What little that is sourced in the article either hails from PRIMARY sources or unreliable ones, bar three sources, which are either ROUTINE coverage or TRIVIALMENTIONS, and what little mentions I could find on this topic do not seem to be enough to establish anything other than that the company exists and nothing more. Due to a lack of SIGCOV and the existence of only ROUTINE coverage or TRIVIALMENTIONS, it fails WP:NCOMPANY. I would argue for a Redirect to the World Championships, seeing as that article covers the bulk of what is in this one already while also acting as an associated topic. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Aurora, Illinois mayoral election

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Illinois. SecretName101 (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 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]

2025 Alton mayoral election

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Illinois. SecretName101 (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mala Kladuša offensive

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

This article is essentially a duplicate of the Capture of Vrnograč article which has recently been improved to include all the fighting that led up to the capture of that town, including this town. There is insufficient material in reliable sources to justify two articles in any case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Grey, Fitzrovia

(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]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Architecture, Companies, Geography, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And Ezra Pound, until you read sources like Brooker 2004, p. 42 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBrooker2004 (help) who explain that xe probably did not drink at that pub, merely lived next to it. Other than that, I kept turning up architecture books talking about a quite different building of this name designed by James William Brooker. Uncle G (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Brooker, Peter (2004). Bohemia in London: The Social Scene of Early Modernism. Springer. ISBN 9780230288096.
Merge to The Yorkshire Grey, where it is already named but has no additional info. A search of digitised newspapers and Google Books only shows ads for the pub, employment ads, or reports of meetings, inquests and other events that happened there. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:09, 14 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]

TEXEL

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

Largely promotional/COI article. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Environment, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Adding a findsources below for the earlier article title (on which there was a no-consensus move discussion, but it has been moved anyway). AllyD (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A lot of content has been deleted since the AFD nomination. When considering whether there is any notability, it is probably better to utilise this version. AllyD (talk) 15:05, 20 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]

Hayes Greenfield

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, and New York. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am finding and adding coverage from digitised newspapers, etc. I'll come back to !vote when I've done more. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. I have added sources to the article. I do know that we don't want 7 refs after one sentence - I'll come back and add more information from those refs, and spread them out. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources added seem to support notability for a program, as opposed to the person themselves from my perspective. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now added sources and info. There are 9 reviews of his albums and 4 articles about his jazz education program, so I think he is clearly notable. There are other reviews I don't have access to (eg in Jazz Improv NY [49]) and a couple more sources I've found and might add. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:34, 19 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]

Keep Now plenty of coverage in many reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG. I can't access the newspaper.com sources, but everything else I've seen is good, except for that one Discogs source. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant improvements made by RebeccaGreen. Herinalian (talk) 23:04, 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.

[2] ttps://www.texassaltwaterfishingmagazine.com/fishing/by-type/fly-fishing/staying-connected-the-nail-knot-part-1-2?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[3] ttps://castingaround.anthonynaples.com/2011/01/book-review-the-nail-knot-by-john-galligan?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[4] ttps://troutbitten.com/2019/03/06/loop-to-loop-is-bad-try-attaching-your-leader-to-the-fly-line-this-way/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[5] ttps://www.nytimes.com/1970/12/08/archives/wood-field-and-stream-buyer-who-seeks-reels-should-beware-of.html

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]