Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 25	December 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PeerStream

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This company was briefly covered by some reliable sources when its name was confused with Snap Inc.'s during their IPO in 2017 [1] [2] [3], and there was no WP:SUSTAINED coverage after that. The brief WP:TECHCRUNCH puff-piece isn't reliable, and the other sources are not independent. Maybe this article would merit a passing mention in the Snap Inc. page. This page was previously deleted in 2006, then it was recreated by a blocked sock in 2014 and then edited by multiple other socks after that. Badbluebus (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Software, Websites, United States of America, and New York. Badbluebus (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree this fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage, edit history doesn't inspire confidence. Void if removed (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see the 2017 brief confusion of this firm's Snap Interactive name with Snap Inc as appropriate for a mention on the Snap Inc. page. However as this firm is now Paltalk Inc and there is a longstanding page at Paltalk, that may provide an ATD target? AllyD (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to see if there is any support for the suggested Merge/Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Paltalk: The Peerstream site now simply redirects to the Paltalk investor site and I am not seeing mention of Peerstream as a continuing product (though the main Paltalk site's Products link attempts a redirect to Peerstream). Whether as a company or a product, I don't see Peerstream as having attained notability, but a redirect could be a history-preserving ATD. AllyD (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads like WP:PROMO for their software products. The drawn-out history behind this article's past removals is also inculpatory. If someone has a solid case for a merge I see no problem with that, but if it were solely me I'd go with a deletion in these circumstances.

Polophylax (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Tolgos

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

WP:BLP of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The only attempt at a notability claim here is that he served as governor of a county, but that represents the local level of government in his country, not the state or provincial level of government -- which means he isn't "inherently" notable under NPOL #1 just for existing, and would have to be shown to pass NPOL #2 on a significant volume and depth of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about him and his work. But this is referenced to one primary source that isn't support for notability at all, and one short blurb that briefly namechecks him in the process of being principally about his wife rather than him.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more reliable source coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Kenya. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I understand, Kenya devolved from a provincial government into county level government. The subject was in the first generation of such local government leaders. There might be some interesting sources of the transition that could help source, but right now, we have virtually nothing. Bearian (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If there are sources to establish that the subject was elected as the governor of the county, then it is clearcut notable. Counties equals to states in countries such as US or Nigeria. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are sources that establish that he served as the governor of the new state but I trust The Nairaobi Star more to confirm his candidacy and winning. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC) It appears I was wrong. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL since Kenya is a unitary and not federalized state. Local governors only meet NPOL in federalized nations. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Marvel Comics characters: D. The only argument to keep insists that sources must exist, but provides no evidence of such. Print media and specialist sources are perfectly acceptable, but not if they are hypothetical. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Death's Head

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

Fails WP:GNG article is almost all list of apperences + plot summary. Very limited devolpement info and no reception best I could found was this [4] everything else was related to him getting a toy Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and United Kingdom. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm expecting you to actually engage, but what exactly is wrong with Starburst and Amazing Heroes as sources? Beyond them not showing up when you mash words into Google? Not doing any digging until someone lays out what exactly is wrong with the sourcing present, because at the moment it looks like yet another I Don't Like It nomination from this editor. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to whatever list of fictional characters from his most relevant franchise is. Pure plot summary and least of appearances - fails WP:GNG. WP:NOTPLOT, WP:NOTCATALOGUE, WP:FANCRUFT... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: D in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a lot of publication history that goes beyond just plot summaries. The article is sourced to Wizard, Bleeding Cool, Amazing Heroes, and Starburst. If either the nature of the publications or the nature of the coverage is not adequate to establish notability, that should be demonstrated here before merging into the list. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That, to be honest, is the nub of my dissatisfaction with this nomination. Those four sources have been considered reliable for plenty of comic articles I've submitted that have been approved as new articles, as have others I believe to have more detail that would help with this article (JDM, Slings & Arrows, Crikey!, possibly even Speakeasy or Back Issue), and generally seem to be considered strong specialist sources. I would like to hear why those sources aren't considered reliable and/or worthy of even consideration before I bother sourcing anything else as it they are somehow suddenly not good enough basically anything else featuring comics is also going to be. And that is going to call the notability of a number of articles I've built around similar sourcing into question, so we might as well nominate all of those and get this shit done. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  A brief overview of the avalible sources
  Starburst: Interview doenst count for notability
  
  Bleeding Cool 1: Just a recap of appearances
  
  Bleeding Cool 2: "x posted a tweet about y"
  
  Bleeding Cool 3: Literally just one passing mention
  
  Amazing Heroes: Seems decent
  
  Wizard: Cant tell as its not on the web but by the title it seems like its talking about Marvel UK and not the character.
  
  Comic Book Resources: Another passing meniton of a different Death's Hand character.
  
  If you can WP:HAY this than by all means go ahead but I cant find anything else usable for notability Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are you dismissing a source that you haven't actually read? That and your begruding acceptance of Amazing Heroes goes to show that your before was entirely online. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. From memory, my re-write was performed largely using sources that had cropped up on another semi-related project, and was likely directed at sourcing up what was already there and possibly removing bald inaccuracies; as the article wasn't new it was never meant to be a finished, definite work (and not just because that's not how Wikipedia should work). As such I believe my decision to not write a "Reception" section was down to choice as I probably moved back to what I was 'meant' to be doing, rather than there being a lack of any material that could be used. As said, there are likely review sources of both character and selected appearances out there, just probably not on Google. I say this every time someone does a web-based before, but there are always some who choose to ignore it - a lot of decent specialist resources are not online, at least not in an easily-searchable format. But I am not pulling physical media from storage four days before Christmas if someone somewhere has just decided specialist publications don't count anymore. Once again though, this is a nomination of an article that just needs work but will likely get deleted because AfD is a broken system and you all just like deleting things. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(personally I'd have centred the article around the publication with the development of the character and guest appearances as background and DHII as a separate article along the same lines, and probably left it unfinished with thoughts of going back one day, but there's no point in doing that at this juncture either until someone finishes deciding on the magic list of reliable sources) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Without anything other than primary and unreliable sources, there is nothing to keep here. Jontesta (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are unreliable? Some may or may confer notability, but I'd be interested to hear which are unreliable. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus. But if this article has a Redirect or Merge outcome, is List of Marvel Comics characters: D an acceptable target article/section?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If (ha, joking, when) the article is redirected to the increasingly unwieldy, poorly sourced, hard to edit and hard to read character list which editor is going to compressing and rewriting it to be an appropriate level of detail? Or is it just going to be the usual "Redirect and leave it to someone else at some point probably"? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It's up to the editors defending the content to improve it within Wikipedia's guidelines. I agree with editors who say that the sources only provide WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. Given the lack of reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV (let alone interest or confidence that more can be found), I don't think a merge is appropriate. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Czechoslovak Figure Skating Championships. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1972 Czechoslovak Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competitions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Czech Republic. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Non-notable. Never had a single source since creation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Czechoslovak Figure Skating Championships. FromCzech (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect All to Czechoslovak Figure Skating Championships per FromCzech. WikiCleanerMan's statement is also correct. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Aiken

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and England. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notable coverage. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, once the reliable sources below are added. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 14:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is going to add anything to this article. The same people pop up on these AFD's, squawk about how someone having their picture taken for their local newspaper qualifies as "significant coverage", and then the article is left in the same crappy condition it was when we started. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearly just pics. Nice to see our fellow editors WP:Assume good faith. JTtheOG (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As we've seen dozens of times by now, the nominator inexplicably refuses to address any actual coverage of the subject, who seems to meet WP:SPORTBASIC. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. JTtheOG (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per sources from JTtheOG.Canary757 (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JTtheOG's sources. pburka (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources uncovered by JTtheOG contain the needed coverage to meet the WP:NBASIC. It doesn't matter if those souces are immediately added to the article, as there is WP:NORUSH. Let'srun (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject looks notable and has enough news coverage as indicated above. Mysecretgarden (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added a couple of the sources to the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:NSKATE#1, won a bronze medal at the 2012 Ondrej Nepala Memorial (international senior-level tournament). Plus the sources provided here qualifies GNG. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 14:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:SNOW‎. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Santiago (meme character)

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

Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme. This seems very weak on sourcing and notability. Geschichte (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the WP:GNG. Not a single source present is reliable, let alone significant coverage. Sources entirely to fansites, social media, YouTube, Wikipedia itself, and other sorts of unreliable WP:USERG type sources. Sergecross73 msg me 23:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It it effectively community ran, the creator has also deleted their account, so it is hard to source much, one of the big sources I used was from a YouTube short "documentary", and the character made an official reference in a game, and a few of my citations were even from a writer of the Sonic comics...

I also used the main fan wiki etc. This is not worth deleting, it's a decent page, any "problems" can also be fixed with user contributions, which there will be more than a few. Charliephere (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's "hard to source much", then it doesn't meet the criteria for having a Wikipedia article. That said, this cannot be fixed simply by passerby users. I don't believe the subject has any GNG-satisfying coverage by third party reliable sources. Think websites like IGN or Eurogamer writing dedicated stories about Santiago. They simply don't exist, because it never happened. Sergecross73 msg me 23:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No reliable sourcing on a non-notable meme. This honestly should have just been speedied given everything regarding this article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find any reliable, secondary sources even mentioning the subject. Woodroar (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, completely non-notable. λ NegativeMP1 23:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources or significant coverage ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 00:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per above. No reliable sources. Madeleine (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources contributing to notability, and one of them is even a YouTube comment. That's a new one. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the sources given is unreliable and the whole article is bunch of WP:FANCRUFT. Quick search on google news and google books reveals no result. Also I just love how he sourced a comment with no likes Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hope of attaining WP:GNG as there's no WP:RS - just WP:USERG here. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A really committed and serious effort to write an article about a humorously non-notable joke. MimirIsSmart (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ukrainian Figure Skating Championships. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Ukrainian Figure Skating Championships

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

Non-notable articles that have been around for over a decade and never had a single source/reference that established notability for these yearly events. Every single edit since creation never had a source added. No in-depth coverage exists and all criteria of notability are not met.

Very similar articles that were nominated in this Afd. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Skating. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My only hesitation in nominating the individual articles of this series was the number of notable skaters who competed in these events. The proportion of notable v. non-notable skaters was much higher for Ukraine than the other countries which I did nominate. I'm not disputing your rationale, and they probably should be deleted too, but I am just explaining why I didn't nominate them myself. Recommend redirect to Ukrainian Figure Skating Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus here to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ExonHost

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

Sources are looking like PR peaces, which only promotes the subject, no independent reliable sources found with in-depth coverage of the subject. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 21:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 21:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have had the same issues finding RS, and original article was fairly promotional (although it looks like it has been trimmed since) ASUKITE 21:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added independent sources. Then why you think this is promotional? RanojitKumar (talk) 12:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE — It's already been said before but it remains an important point, the article simply fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. There is a complete lack of significant, independent and reliable coverage from RS. The article relies on either primary sources (like its own site) or local Bangladeshi media outlets which come across as paid promotional PR pieces. I have not been able to find any RS either; for the company's current name or one of its three previous names. WP:SIGCOV requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The references provided fail to demonstrate significant or independent reporting about the company. Without substantial, independent coverage from reputable secondary sources, the subject fails to meet WP:GNG.

The only possible notable thing about the subject seems to be that it is a ICANN accredited registrar. Though, while ICANN accreditation is a notable achievement within the web hosting industry, it does not, by itself, confer notability under WP standards. ICANN accredits hundreds of registrars. Inclusion on the ICANN registrar list does not inherently demonstrate encyclopedic value and so unless substantial independent and reliable sources with significant coverage is added, the article does not qualify for inclusion at this time and should therefore be deleted.

~~~~ Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 01:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.channelionline.com/দুই-তরুণের-এক্সনহোস্ট/

https://www.jagonews24.com/technology/news/185755

Those two articles from popular and verified Bangladeshi online news portal. I added much of them. Also I added WordCamp's links.

Don't they are enough for references? RanojitKumar (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the added sources, such as the article from Jagonews24 and the piece from Future Startup or even the one from Channeli Online, do not constitute reliable, independent coverage as required by WP:RS. These sources exhibit characteristics of puff pieces or press releases and fail to provide significant, in-depth analysis of the subject. The article in Jagonews24 seems like a press release. The one in Future Startup seems very promotional with grammatical errors and superficial coverage. It focuses on the founder’s ambitions rather than any substantial achievements or impact by the actual company.

Promotional or primary sources (like the company's own website or blogs related to WordPress sponsorships) cannot be used to establish notability under WP:IS. While we are on the topic of the sponsorships, the ExonHost article now prominently features ExonHost's sponsorship of WordCamp events, presenting it as evidence of notability. However, this inclusion is misleading for several reasons:

Sponsorship of WordCamp events does not confer significance or notability, as WordCamp allows any company to sponsor events by paying very small fees. For example, ExonHost's bronze sponsorship at WordCamp Kanpur 2017 required just $180 U.S. Dollars (source: WordCamp Kanpur Sponsorship Details);
Presenting these sponsorships as a key component of the company's achievements just inflates its importance and contributes to a promotional tone.

The article still leans heavily on primary sources, including the company's own website and affiliated blogs (like the WordCamp event pages). The article fails to provide significant independent coverage to counterbalance its reliance on promotional material.

That is only one part of the issue. An even bigger one is the fact that the subject does not meet WP:NCORP and WP:GNG as pointed out by myself and other contributors. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 12:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage. References such as Future Startup is an interview, Wordcamp is sponsored Mysecretgarden (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This company is based in Bangladesh, and its operations are centred there. Aren't articles from reputable Bangladeshi news portals sufficient to verify its notability or serve as independent sources? It's unlikely that international media like The New York Times or other global outlets would cover a company that primarily caters to the Bangladeshi market. If leading Bangladeshi news portals have provided coverage, why wouldn't that be enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? RanojitKumar (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article not having sufficient reliable sources. Seminita (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you define reliability? Channel I and JagoNews are widely recognised as credible and authentic sources within Bangladeshi news media. RanojitKumar (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Valley2city (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Kirste

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

An article about a living person without references. A proper way would be to go via BLP-PROD, but some references were previously in the article and were removed, so that I decided to try going here. Apparently the article was created and mainly written by a COI editor, and then almost everything was removed. Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany. Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This was the only source i could find [5], not enough for notability. The lack of any extensive prose in the article (in this or prior versions) is not helping. Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That citation is an interview in a self-published book (Books on Demand) by the filmmaker for whom he acted as a camera man. It's a primary source, and a COI source, it does not count towards notability. Netherzone (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding that this cinematographer is notable per WP:GNG nor WP:CREATIVE. A BEFORE search finds only his Flickr uploads, LinkedIn, Facebook, IMDb, Instagram and other user-submitted social-media type hits and a couple hits for another person with the same name who is an academic. Netherzone (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination and comments. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails notability guidelines. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dreams Mall

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

No secondary reliable sources found which provides SIGCOV coverage of the subject, currently cited sources are primary. GrabUp - Talk 20:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Kerala. GrabUp - Talk 20:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ultimately, not enough WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Note that there is another similarly named "Dreams Mall" in Bhandup, Mumbai, India, which contributes to false positives. Now, this "Dreams Mall" in Kottiyam has only false positives in Google Books, JSTOR and TWL above. It seems like "Dreams Mall" in Google Scholar also turns out false positives for Kottiyam's. I did find actual results in Google News using the mall's Malayalam name; after filtering out social media websites there are 8 results. But most of the articles focus on LuLu Group International opening stores in Dreams Mall (which could potentially be an advertisement, see WP:NEWSORGINDIA), while one other article just mentions the mall as part of New Year celebrations. The last article has better coverage on a questionable process of funding the construction of the mall, but this one article is really not enough. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Navy Medical College, Chattogram

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, no SIGCOV coverages found. GrabUp - Talk 20:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. GrabUp - Talk 20:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Education, and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - delete BakerStMD 20:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find any references in English at this time. Potential recreation from an article written on the Bengali Wikipedia at some point if that comes to exist, but for now this subject does not meet notability standards. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This subject does not seem notable and does not have any news coverage. Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found no WP:SIGCOV in any sources that I found about the school. Tgvarrt (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Schulz

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Austria. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No SIGCOV found.Canary757 (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks WP:RS citations and does not qualify under WP:GNG.Go4thProsper (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Florian Mistelbauer

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Austria. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no WP:SIGCOV found. Google Books seems to only produce false positives. Even Google Search does not produce much, instead other people of the same name, an auditor, a hotel manager, a chef... starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No SIGCOV found.Canary757 (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not finding the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG for this BLP. Let'srun (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For all the reasons stated above.
Shrug02 (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Transformation Worship. Content worth merging may be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thy Kingdom Come (Transformation Worship album)

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

Seems to fail WP:NALBUM; I am unable to find any in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources. JTtheOG (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Christianity, and United States of America. JTtheOG (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transformation Worship: I also failed to find coverage, including in the Christian sources listed as RSMUSIC. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transformation Worship, per QuietHere, as an alternative to deletion. I also can't find any WP:SIGCOV. Charting on a niche/genre chart does not meet the criteria for WP:NALBUM, which refers to the primary music chart for a country. The creator of the article seems to be on a mission to create articles for every Christian music album, despite having WP:NMUSIC and WP:NALBUM and the requirements for significant coverage pointed out to them on several occasions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Transformation Worship: per nom Rainydaywindows (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to Transformation Worship: I can't find any sources that could be suitable for this article. Tgvarrt (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1996–97 Australian Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competition. Recommend deletion or redirect to Australian Figure Skating Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Skating, and Australia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my problem with these stand-alone articles. All four disciplines are often not contested. There are often not enough competitors to award a bronze medal, and in some cases, even a silver medal. Many of these competitions featured no more than two or three participants. And most of the competitors who are listed are redlinked or unlinked (ie. themselves not notable). The competition results and scores are included (or should be included) on a skaters' individual article. The medal results are included on the parent article (in this case, Australian Figure Skating Championships). But these nations with small national championships are just not worth trying to maintain individual articles for each competition. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Non-notable. Never had a single source since creation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all all unreferenced and fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source is not enough need more sources. Tgvarrt (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Dodds

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Australia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easy call. Doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:RS guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG.Canary757 (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jaimee Nobbs

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Australia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as the other skaters nominated here. They don’t meet the requirements and haven’t achieved significant RS coverage. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Multiple searches turned up zero secondary sources which could be used to meet the WP:GNG here. Please ping me if sources showing possible WP:SIGCOV are uncovered. Let'srun (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Belgian Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competition. Recommend deletion or redirect to Belgian Figure Skating Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Skating, and Belgium. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my problem with these stand-alone articles. All four disciplines are often not contested. There are often not enough competitors to award a bronze medal, and in some cases, even a silver medal. Many of these competitions featured no more than two or three participants. And most of the competitors who are listed are redlinked or unlinked (ie. themselves not notable). The competition results and scores are included (or should be included) on a skaters' individual article. The medal results are included on the parent article (in this case, Belgian Figure Skating Championships). But these nations with small national championships are just not worth trying to maintain individual articles for each competition. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Non-notable. Never had a single source since creation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Per above. It's even questionable whether the parent article is notable when there are so few competitors. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Norwegian Figure Skating Championships. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Norwegian Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competition. Recommend deletion or redirect to Norwegian Figure Skating Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Skating, and Norway. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my problem with these stand-alone articles. All four disciplines are often not contested. There are often not enough competitors to award a bronze medal, and in some cases, even a silver medal. Many of these competitions featured no more than two or three participants. And most of the competitors who are listed are redlinked or unlinked (ie. themselves not notable). The competition results and scores are included (or should be included) on a skaters' individual article. The medal results are included on the parent article (in this case, Norwegian Figure Skating Championships). But these nations with small national championships are just not worth trying to maintain individual articles for each competition. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Non-notable. Never had a single source since creation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Per above. It's even questionable whether the parent article is notable when there are so few competitors. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Not a sport with a substantial following or coverage. Geschichte (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Norwegian Figure Skating Championships: None of these events appear to meet the relevant guidelines, namely the WP:GNG. Redirect as a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Norwegian Figure Skating Championships: per Let'srun's sugesstion; I agree with that. Also, on the redirected page, create a table of it (year, dates, ___location, 1st medalist, 2nd medalist, 3rd medalist, references if) for men and women. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 14:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those tables are already in place. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. for the reasons listed. Also, an issue with merging is that the other list suggested serves a very different purpose. Valley2city (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of James Bond villains

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

This is a mostly unsourced spin off from List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series, which is also questionably sourced and possibly WP:OR. This article is almost completely unsourced and there is nothing to preserve that hasn't already been covered at similar articles, including List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series and the mentions in List of James Bond films. Wikipedia implores us to not endlessly make new splits of the similar topics based on WP:SYNTH and arbitrary scope. Jontesta (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Film. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one , or Merge the two - This 2004 list has only one source, which is a now-dead link from 2008 USA Today. Prefer we keep the 2009 List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series; much more informative and has 24 varied sources. — Maile (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Clarification comment. Suggest either delete one, or merge one into the other. We don't need two lists doing the same thing. This is not about whether or not Bond characters have been listed/covered. Both lists do that, to one degree or another. This is about list duplication, and which one is the most accurate and most within Wikipedia standards to do so. — Maile (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: the subject has been covered as a set in reliable sources so that the list meets WP:NLIST -Mushy Yank. 00:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources include: Ian Fleming and James Bond:The Cultural Politics of 007; The Terrible Fitzball:The Melodramatist of the Macabre and plenty of other books. And plenty of articles including https://metro.co.uk/2014/12/04/weve-been-expecting-you-the-top-41-james-bond-villains-from-worst-to-best-4972989/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/jamesbond/11089346/Top-ten-James-Bond-villains-in-pictures.html etc, -Mushy Yank. 01:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the following sources:

Kavanagh, C., Cavanna, A. (2020). James Bond villains and psychopathy: A literary analysis. Journal of Psychopathology, 26(4), 273-283 [10.36148/2284-0249-351]. link

Grandy, C. (2014). The shape of villainy: Profiteering and money-men. In Heroes and happy endings: Class, gender, and nation in popular film and fiction in interwar Britain (pp. 83-132). Manchester: Manchester University Press. https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526111210.00010 (note: not able to access full view of this)

DiLeo, M. (2002). The Spy who Thrilled Us: A Guide to the Best of the Cinematic James Bond. Hal Leonard Corporation. Though just snippet view, this book includes multiple pages on how Bond villains attempt to kill Bond and fail.

Hall, J. (2017, May 24). All 104 James Bond Villains, Ranked. Esquire. link

Huver, S. (2023, September 6). The top 25 James Bond villains, ranked. AV Club. link

Ultimately "Bond villain" is not an unencyclopedic cross-categorization, but a topic that's talked about and written about in the popular and scholarly press. Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others citing WP:NLIST. In addition to the above, I found these:

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Pretty obvious that "Bond villains" are discussed as a set. Toughpigs (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided above. It does appear that James Bond's villians are often discussed as a group, which makes the list meet WP:NLIST. Aoba47 (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:LISTN due to being notable as a group. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Ibis the Invincible#Enemies. A Redirect would not work here as this section is simply a link to this article. So, I'm closing this as a Merge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ibis the Invincible enemies

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

This is complete unsourced. The main article Ibis the Invincible is notable but Wikipedia implores us to not immediately split new articles if it would fail the general notability criteria and specific notability criteria for their topic. There is nothing to preserve, and for those who disagree, any fixes can occur at the main Ibis the Invincible article. Jontesta (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unsourced list that is almost entirely made up of minor, one-shot characters. Searches are not showing any kind of sources that would support or justify a spinout character list, let alone a specific enemies list, for Ibis. Rorshacma (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the enemies section of Ibis the Invincible in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect per Rorshacma. Can't find the types of sources that would justify one, let alone multiple character lists. Redirect is a valid WP:ATD, or even a selective merge per Rtkat3. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sooko Deji Ajomale-Mcword

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

All the sources fail WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV cannot be established. A Nigerian figure in sports, tourism and diplomacy... and yet nothing to establish his notability cannot be found online Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Golf. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources available are majorly interviews or a reprint of what the subject said. I’m not particularly certain that the awards won helps to establish ANYBIO. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: do, a quick search revealed little that could contribute to notoriety. Therefore, I think it should be removed. WP:GNG fails. Tgvarrt (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miz Ima Starr

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

WP:BLP of a cabaret performer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for performers. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show certain specific markers of achievement sourced to a WP:GNG-worthy depth and volume of third-party coverage in reliable sources -- but the only notability claim in evidence here is that Miz Ima Starr exists, and the article is referenced almost entirely to event calendar listings and the self-published websites of venues where she's performed, which aren't support for notability. The only potentially decent source is one newspaper article that is paywalled even in the Wayback Machine archiving link (meaning I can't actually read it to determine if it supports a meaningful notability claim or not), and isn't enough to singlehandedly vault her over GNG all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy source she's got.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived Australian and New Zealand media than I've got can find enough proper GNG-worthy coverage to salvage it, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Australia, and New Zealand. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, @Bearcat, that as it stands, it doesn't meet the GNG with reliable and accessible sources.

I had a look at the NZ media and I have found one piece in the PastPaper archive, I haven't been successful finding anything through the NZHerald or Stuff. I have found a passing mention to the Australia's Got Talent semi-finals in a journal article in the European Journal of Cultural Studies here, and a couple of other articles from the Australian Arts Review, Star Observer, and an interview with Joy Media, that I don't see currently referenced in the article. There is also some archival media coverage that I cannot access, such as this. Lastly, there is an IMDB page that has the films produced/directed - although I believe this is a disputed use of this source on Wikipedia, so might be best avoided.

I am not sure whether this will be enough to meet GNG but I am happy to contribute to rewriting and adding these references, if that would help it meet it. Ewhite31 (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the references appear to be secondary and provide significant coverage.

I did find one reference that provides that but I don't believe it is reliable enough for a BLP. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Likely PROMO or COI. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. At best this article is written WP:TOOSOON. Tgvarrt (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Selnar

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

Selnar has never played at professional level and mostly spends his career in lower leagues so far. Regarding secondary sources, I found Czech Radio and Deník, neither of which cover him in-depth. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Czech Republic. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has been playing his entire career in fully professional clubs, in fully professional competition, so the first sentence of the nomination is misleading. FromCzech (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I meant he never played in Czech First League, which I thought was the only professional league. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCAA Division I schools that have never sponsored football

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

Subject does not appear to have the requisite coverage to meet the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete‎. Fails WP:NLIST as there is no WP:SIGCOV of these entities as a group. Willing to reconsider if such coverage is made available, so please ping me. Frank Anchor 15:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and American football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 18:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of NCAA Division I non-football programs which already includes most of the information included within this nominated article. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Ifeanyi Hart

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

Serving as the Director-General of a non notable organisation and being a special adviser to the governor does not meet the criteria for a politician. The sources are either press releases like this, this, this and this or pass mentioned like this and this. Therefore, all the sources cannot count toward WP:GNG and WP: SIGCOV cannot be established. Ibjaja055 (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable lawyer. Working with the gov't isn't notable, nor is much else I see in the article. I can't find sourcing either. This reads as a CV, an attempt at PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Working PR man, lawyer. Sources does not show that it they meet the general notability criteria nor is the criteria for politicians applicable here. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NPOL. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination and comments. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish notability of any kind here. No WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO pass. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martine Zuiderwijk

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Netherlands. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Procyon117 (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Three paragraphs of coverage here [[6]], and a brief mention at [[7]]. Not seeing enough here for a WP:GNG pass right now. Let'srun (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Wednesday 13. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skeletons (Wednesday 13 album)

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

Sources on page are no good, one being the artist's website and the other being an AllMusic page with no published review or rating. And I couldn't find any additional reliable coverage, not even the Kerrang! review which the article suggests exists (though I wouldn't doubt that it does and just isn't archived). But even so, Kerrang! alone would not save this article, and I haven't seen coverage which would. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I got incidentally involved with this while doing some work on the list of 2008 albums article. After I removed an unreliable source for this album there, the entry as a whole was challenged. A couple casual searches didn't find decent sourcing apart from a review by High Voltage Magazine (incidentally, HVM might be an AfD candidate), and my restoration was reverted, and I was referred to this AfD. I was thinking that this probably was a good AfD candidate, but after a more comprehensive search, I'd now say definitely keep. In addition to the possible Kerrang! review, there's reviews by Metal Hammer Germany [8], Metal.de [9], and (albeit less impressively) MetalFan.nl.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Important to note that 3family6 added Metal.de to RSMUSIC without any prior discussion, but it was removed right after with a request that such a discussion be had first. 3family6 did start that discussion here, but it has not received any responses yet. There is a good case being made there, but I haven't looked into it myself and can't speak to the source beyond that. All this to say that source's reliability is still an open question, and if it were rejected then that would leave us at just (presumably, if someone can find the Kerrang! review) two reliable sources, which I think is too thin a margin to pass this. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair to disclose. I will make clear that I've used this source for years, as have many others, and it has never been challenged.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the reliability of the source wasn't questioned, rather my unilateral addition to it to the reliable sources list without discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QuietHere, it looks like consensus is that Metal.de is reliable, and the editor who challenged the addition did so more out of wanting to make sure that there is discussion. Caveat that participation so far in the discussion has been fairly minimal.-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're probably right about that. However, I don't think that alone resolves the matter of this album's notability. We still only have two confirmed reliable sources, metal.de and Metal Hammer, and the assumption that the Kerrang! review is out there somewhere. I'm not convinced that that's enough. If nobody else is going to participate in this discussion, I'd rather it close as no consensus as to not discourage other editors from renominating it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 14:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wednesday 13: not finding enough to merit a separate article, but would suggest redirect as alternative to deletion. Rainydaywindows (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to say above but I also support this redirect. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Matei

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Romania. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just barely misses out on WP:NSKATE, but more importantly I could not find any coverage in secondary sources. Toadspike [Talk] 14:16, 26 December 2024 (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 14:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Toadspike. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Balint Miklos

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Romania. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE ASAP. Zero sourcing. Does not at all prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2024 (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 14:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability and significant coverage criterias.

Shrug02 (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Friedman Agnifilo

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

This should probably be redirected to Luigi Mangione, as her only WP:notable action has been defending Mangione. So, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E most likely apply. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and WP:BLP1E to the article of the individual that the subject is notable for having represented. --Richard Yin (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep. Most references are trivial mentions, but this is a pretty lengthy 2021 article about the subject in the New York Law Journal, which seems like a reliable source by my reading of WP:RSLAW. --Richard Yin (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on Luigi Mangione. WP:BLP1E. Lack material for WP:V. QEnigma talk 14:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as she is only notable for one thing. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Luigi Mangione. Procyon117 (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems as though if she weren't involved in the case of Luigi Mangione, she would have only had inherited notability via her husband (hate to say it that way but that's how it appears). Perhaps in the future she will have independent notability. Trillfendi (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With all respect to the nominator, I strongly disagree. Would you say that Johnny Cochrane defending OJ was not notable? This will be, and already is one of the most high profile cases in the entire world, and her name will be looked up on wikipedia constantly. Furthermore, she has plenty of independent notability before the case, with her working for the DA's office of Manhattan, working on Law and Order, and her popular podcasts. Those references have been added in. Please look at them. PaulPachad (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PaulPachad: Could you please provide independent reliable sources that provided significant coverage of Agnifilo that were published before December 2024? GoingBatty (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they were added in. PaulPachad (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are only trivial mentions of her before this month- there was no WP:SIGCOV of her before, just mentions of her or her podcasts in passing more or less.

As for Cochrane, he became notable because of the way he defended OJ, not just bcs he was the defense lawyer. If she become notable, we can revert the redirect- that's why I said it should probably be redirected, and not deleted, bcs her notability will be very ambiguous for at least some time. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear @DoctorWhoFan91 If you google her name with the modifier "Before December 2024", you get dozens of articles that would qualify her for an article. Please look here, friends https://www.google.com/search?q=karen+friedman+agnifilo+before:2024-12-01&sca_esv=0abcab0091fd1269&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ADLYWIKOECi4pbSqwH6BXo6Farq5uIqUCw:1735248979949&ei=U8xtZ5rBOY-j5NoP8ZDG2Qw&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwjatq-YssaKAxWPEVkFHXGIMcsQ8NMDegQIBhAK&biw=1920&bih=911&dpr=1 PaulPachad (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot base notability on predictions about future events. Kingturtle = (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid losing the content in the event that the subject gains more notability in the future, draftifying is also an option. The current title can then be redirected. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect won't actually remove the page history, so there is no need to draftify it. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right, my bad haha. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep based on her notability on TV and other media prior to the Mangione case. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because she was very independently WP:N before Mangione. She starred in the prosecution of Harvey Weinstein [10] [11] [12] [13] as the Chief Assistant District Attorney. Her reputation precedes her by a long way. There are many WP:V and WP:RS about her. IZAK (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just from skimming her article (which are filled with sources discussing her life and career before taking on Mangione's case), she:
"is a frequent legal analyst on television networks, including CNN and MSNBC"

"serves as a legal advisor for the television show Law & Order"

"worked in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office for over 20 years, holding several senior roles"

"From 2014 to 2021, served as Chief Assistant District Attorney, the second-highest position in the office. In this role, she oversaw more than 500 attorneys and played a significant role in high-profile cases."

"served as General Counsel to the New York City Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice during Michael Bloomberg's administration."

"helped develop Manhattan's first Mental Health Court"

"co-hosts a weekly legal podcast and YouTube channel, called MissTrial, on the MeidasTouch network"

She's mentioned in numerous reliable sources before 2024, and appears more notable (and accomplished) than some of the people listed in [[Category:20th-century American women lawyers]]. All of that plus her taking on Mangione's case (which, in addition to giving her more national attention, is now giving her international attention) tips the scale in her passing the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. Some1 (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All trivial mentions, nothing in detail or focused on her before this month though. Mangione's case probably falls under WP:BLP1E like I stated in the nom statement. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She's a defense attorney with over two decades experience at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, co-hosts two legal podcasts, is a legal advisor for Law & Order, and is a frequent legal analyst on CNN and MSNBC. Redirecting her page to Luigi Mangione's article makes it seem like her being his defense attorney is the only thing she's "notable" for. That's not accurate and doesn't help readers. Also, this 2021 interview with the New York Law Journal linked by Richard Yin above is noteworthy. Some1 (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that she is not a big lawyer. I'm just saying that the only thing that would make her WP:Notable (she is notable, but Wikipedia uses a different criteria) is one thing only. Interviews are not always considered reliable, even if published in a reliable source. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect Per nomination and comments. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does not seem all that prominent. 80.200.94.240 (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To be honest, she should've had an article before the case anyway Personisinsterest (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Build

AfDs for this article:

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

14 yr old stub page that appears to be nothing more than an advert Hexware (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hexware (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG / WP:SNG criteria (WP:NSOFT). No Limited WP:RS and WP:IS for WP:V. QEnigma talk 13:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to WP:NTEMP 2nd paragraph (While notability itself is not temporary, ...). QEnigma talk 07:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by citing this policy? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~: Article desperately needs expansion from the two sources cited, which do give it notability. I dunno what @QEnigma means as those are clearly both independent sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. .NET Developer's Journal appears to be more of a blog than a reliable source that demonstrates notability. The author of the article appears to only have written one article for that outlet and does not appear to be a journalist. Brandon (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The journal has a then-big publisher, Sys-Con Media, that hosts the cloud development expo advertised at the bottom. Looking at Groklaw#Media controversy, they have some sort of editing process that allowed tons of false claims to slip through, including the doxxing of a FOSS law reporter for no apparent reason. You're correct that the source's reliability is questionable, and on further review, it has little information (though addressed directly). Now that there's only one good source, I'll change my !vote to neutral.
We don't need journalists to write articles and reviews about software to have notability; not sure what you meant by that part. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Functional Diamond

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

Article was deleted after an expired PROD with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article was restored 10 months later with the addition of the (highly selective) Science Citation Index Expanded in the section "abstracting and indexing". However, checking Clarivate's Master Journal List shows that this is not correct. Instead, the journal is included in the much less selective Emerging Sources Citation Index. Therefore the PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG / WP:SNG. Ref. for WP:V, either limited or not available. QEnigma talk 13:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Tgvarrt (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Valley2city (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of pubs in Hampshire owned by JD Wetherspoon

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

Fails NLIST - Wikipedia is not a directory. CR (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and England. CR (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:TRIVIA. All cited sources are either to the company or to a historic archive that gives the geo-coordinates. None of the individual listings is notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic case of NOTDIR Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. None of the pubs listed have articles and sources are questionable. Procyon117 (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't a directory and none of these pubs have articles. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NOTDIR; Outside the most generic person, nobody looking for a night out at a pub is looking to consult a list of corporate and generic pubs with the same sterile menu and ambiance; this list would be equivalent to a List of Buffalo Wild Wings in New Jersey article. Nate • (chatter) 21:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and clearly not a notable topic. Ajf773 (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these pubs are listed buildings and for most pubs there is likely to be some other coverage so I'd be careful about the argument that none currently have articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this was clearly created in good faith by the author, there is no reason to keep it. It fails WP:NOT's guidelines for lists. These pubs can be found just as easily on Wetherspoon's Pub Finder, or a niche directory like Whatpub. --Mechanical Elephant (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ottoman Hearths. Content worth merging may be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hearth Party

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

This political party has sources, but seems completely trivial within politics. Ran in the 2024 Turkish local elections and gathered 2000 of 46 million votes. When reaching such an incredibly low level of relevance in politics, it is of no encyclopedic interest which hand gestures they like or how they view Atatürk. Geschichte (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think it should be marged and redirected, into a new 'Hearth Party' section on the Ottoman Hearths article as it is the 'political wing' of that group, both are stubs and there seems to be some considerable overlap already. I don't read turkish (and google translate struggles!) but most of the sources seem to talk about them together. JeffUK 10:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads like PROMO for a low-polling party. Hand signals and how they see history is a good half of the article, which seems like fluffy padding added to bulk-up a otherwise thin article. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to Ottoman Hearths seems like a middle ground here. Geschichte (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Kant (Indian executive)

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

Non notable executive, fails wp:GNG. Zuck28 (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Business, India, and Rajasthan. Zuck28 (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The former CEO of Tata Motors [14] is a non-notable executive??? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BASIC, Wp:NINI and Wp:INVALIDBIO Notability is not inherited. Zuck28 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability inheritance doesn't apply to positions (as, for example, American state-level politicians). The CEO of a high-profile, major company is invariably covered by the media. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A notable executive, i have added citations and made it better. Taabii (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angelos Bountalis

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

Although the article is incredibly detailed, there are no sources at all as the one source used is just a link to a website with no apparent mention of Bountalis. I have searched in Greek but can't find anything about him. No sign of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC despite apparently having a very eventful amateur career. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to make a new one shortly, you will see this guy playing again, I know him personally and that's why I make his page.

Every athlete should leave his mark in this world, for the next generations to come and inspire. Footballlover23 (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you know him personally, then you have a conflict of interest. Please respond to the request to declare COI on your talk page. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I kmow him because i work as a scouter in football industry, i know many players around Netherlands and Europe. Footballlover23 (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That still falls under Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. More to the point, please add some proper news sources to the Bountalis article. The one that you have included doesn't even mention him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already did it. 2A02:A210:4B9:DF00:3528:F340:29F9:40D7 (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources found. 2A02:A210:4B9:DF00:A5AB:CF80:5EE6:6F47 (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: courtesy ping as IP forgot to ping Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The one source found does not appear to be sufficient coverage. Giant Snowman 15:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete – Article provides only one source and mostly contains original research. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the single source doesn't even mention him. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source mention him Footballlover23 (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That source contains barely any substantial info about Bountalis. It's basically a copy and paste of a club press release. It contains no meaningful coverage of his career, playing style, injuries, personal life etc. I'm still firmly in favour of deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the only comment opposing deletion is You will need to make a new one shortly, you will see this guy playing again, I know him personally and that's why I make his page. Every athlete should leave his mark in this world, for the next generations to come and inspire. This is a complete violation of WP:CRYSTAL. There is no guarantee whatsoever that Bountalis will be notable in the future. In any case, there is no rush to create an article. We can always wait until he becomes notable and then create after that. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brysam Global Partners

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 06:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and New York. Imcdc Contact 06:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are either unreliable or defunct or does not demonstrate significant coverage. Madeleine (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - References appear to be from non-quality sites.Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree, the page should be deleted due to it not meeting criteria. Tgvarrt (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shugavybz

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

Yet another article on a musician who has done literally nothing notable to pass WP:NMUSICIAN. Sources from here and a cursory search suggests nothing useful. They're either interviews with the subject, or routine coverages that are entirely dependent on the subject. This is, as usual, a properly written article from the author on a non-notable musician to pretend notability. Also, the TurnTable Certification System of Nigeria is dubious in its entirety. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the sources are either puff pieces that are meant to confer notability on him or interviews. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has written more than one major hit record, automatically meets WP:COMPOSER, just like a scriptwriter or director who has directed multiple award-winning movies. Even if he doesn't pass GNG, but passes WP:FILMS, he automatically establishes notability. Likewise he passes WP:ANYBIO, with a special recognition from The Recording Academy as a composer. One last thing, I would say the coverage for example [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], add up to a GNG pass, with an extensive list of production and songwriting credits from "No Girlfriend No Problem", "Away", "One Side", "Yawa No Dey End", "My Baby", and many more.--Afí-afeti (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Afí-afeti your comment makes it sound like you are arguing for a Keep but you neglected to actually declare this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per my comment.--Afí-afeti (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Afi-Afeti, he doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN but he does meet WP:COMPOSER. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Afí-afeti presented a very compelling argument. The reliability of some of the sources are questionable but the album nomination for the 66th Annual Grammy Awards can be verfied easily which at least means he meets the notability criteria at least as a composer. FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma I’m sorry, but I do not see and cannot comprehend how having a Grammy nom (and not win) helps this subject to pass WP:COMPOSER. There’s absolutely nothing that implies an NCOMPOSER pass here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per point presented by Fuzzymama and Afi-Afeti Tesleemah (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He gained international recognition for co-writing Davido's Grammy-nominated fourth studio album Timeless, which earned him a special recognition from The Recording Academy as a composer. That satisfies criteria 1 for WP:COMPOSER. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hadatha

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

The article was tagged for notability by Randykitty in 2021. A detailed review reveals an over-reliance on self-references and directory websites. There is no indication of notability, and no independent, reliable sources are available to support the subject.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Lebanon. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Finding third party coverage of academic journals in Arabic is not an easy task and I’m not sure the infrastructure even exists to query it as we could an English language journal. In the absence of a hard policy on notability for academic journals I would give considerable weight to its longevity and links with higher education, alongside the fact that it clearly isn’t pumping out pseudoscience or acting as a vehicle for cranks. In any case its important enough for Lebanon’s national news agency to announce the publication of each new issue (1 and 2) and for the news of each issue to be covered in the national press (3 and 4). Mccapra (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jms Brynt

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

Very minor, likely non-notable SoundCloud/Bandcamp musician. Based off the sources, the article probably meets WP:SIGCOV, however these are articles which themselves either imply that the subject is not notable or only note that the artist has released music. For example, the Earmilk source describes him as an "artist to watch". Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and New York. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - GoodMusicRadar doesn't have any author credits or seemingly that much info on the ownership, Earmilk appear to be a more professional operation and there was an article on it until literally a few days ago, the Cultr piece lists an author with no bio and I can find no info on the ownership on site (if anyone knows if its reliable, please tell) Iostn (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: couldn't find enough reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG and merit an article. Rainydaywindows (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - complete vanity spam sourced to blackhat seo and nothing in the way of actual independent, reliable sourdes or coverage id also recommend the crestor thoroughly read thr paid editing policy before continuing to spam their clients. Admins, please see the hisotry of James Brynt as well. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 19:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Dpkg. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dselect

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

Unnecessary, uncited article that could be merged into APT (software), merged into Debian, or deleted. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think it'd be more logical to merge the content into Dpkg since that's the source package that contains it. Citations could no doubt be found if required e.g. from the changelog. Ewx (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a merge and redirect into a section in the dpkg article is warranted. It's not impossible that some old books about Debian talk about it, but it's been obsolete far longer than it's been current at this point. --Joy (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. WP:NOTCHANGELOG violations aside, the content currently in the article could be condensed to a couple of sentences so I'm not convinced it needs its own section in dpkg. --Richard Yin (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dpkg. On it's own it there is no significant news coverage.Shinadamina (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Computational human modeling

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

non-notable, based on Google Scholar and Google Books. fgnievinski (talk) 04:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a neologism with barely a definition and no real-world usage. --Richard Yin (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:DICTDEF with no real world usage, Wikipedia appears to be the primary source for the term at this point. Brandon (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ —usernamekiran (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

X11 color names

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

WP:NOTGUIDE and no indication of warranting a separate article. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don’t see at all how this article would sound like a guide. Please elaborate. It is also not a simple list article but full of explanations about the genesis of these widely used named RGB colors. — Christoph Päper 07:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't read WP:NOTGUIDE as relevant since the article is not much more instructional than, say, Web colors. At worst the article does not satisfy a Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field, but that's an argument for rewriting rather than deleting.

The lead section needs to be cleaned up, and perhaps the whole thing needs to be restructured, but the subject easily passes WP:GNG and I don't see it failing WP:NOTDB or any other part of WP:NOT. --Richard Yin (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of my favorite articles, compared to Web colors, it is much easier to understand. 🐢 (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Richard Yin's reasoning above. A potential improvement to the article would be reworking the lead so that what makes the X11 colors relevant is presented more explicitly. Duplode (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A useful, inormative, article. It doesn't read like a guide. Maproom (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. Speedied as WP:A7 and WP:G11 by User:Espresso Addict. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BELLiNZEEMA

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. I don't see enough coverage for the subject. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~I need the Article to be Published and not deleted OLADEPODESTINYCHIGOZIE (talk) 03:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~This is an Upcoming Artist and we are supposed to support him Chigozieeditor (talk) 05:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Richard Yin (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:G11. --Richard Yin (talk) 09:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7. There’s no credibility of importance. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: This article fails the criteria for WP:BLP. With two unreliable and promotional sources, there is no clear importance of the subject. Ibjaja055 (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Ibjaja055 (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - clearly fails WP:GNG and MUSICBIO Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Trombetti

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

I believe the subject of the article does not meet WP:GNG due to not receiving significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. None of the sources referenced by the article meet both these criteria - there are many citations either to primary sources or to reliable sources that only briefly mention the subject.

After searching online for sources:

Google web search shows no significant coverage from reliable sources in first 3 pages
Google Books shows the following results:

Zero to AI by Valigi and Mauro: Some passing coverage in a section, a few pages long, about the technical details of Trombetti's work.
How AI Ate the World by Chris Stokel-Walker. Passing mention of the subject in the context of an opinion he expressed on one occasion and a discussion of its merits.
Handbook of the Language Industry, published by De Gruyter. Even briefer mention of the same event.
Some more works that cite the subject as a source.

Google News shows a few podcasts and press releases, but no secondary sources.
Google Scholar shows about 700 citations, 400 to the subject's academic work. WP:NPROF is questionable.

Additionally, the tone of the article borders on WP:PROMO, and recent events appear to indicate undisclosed paid editing on a topic closely related to the article's subject. --Richard Yin (talk) 02:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. --Richard Yin (talk) 02:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Not sure yet~~ Delete. Certainly no pass of WP:Prof#C1 in a very high cited field. There is a lot of grandiose puffery of his entrepreneurial activities that other editors will have to assess. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC),[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, France, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The GScholar profile[20] shows h-index of 5, certainly not enough to pass WP:PROF. The case for WP:BIO notability as an entrepreneur also appears weak, per the nominator's arguments. In any case, the article is so promotional as to border on G11. Nsk92 (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Overtly promotion and obviously created by someone with a close connection to the subject. Brandon (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails SIGCOV and NBIO. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Also, fails WP:PROMO. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Mangi

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Austria. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to find some additional references I think it can be maintained. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your reference only supported the results, which were never in question, and did nothing to establish any sort of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And actually, upon examination, it’s a wiki-mirror. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absence of any IRS sources with SIGCOV, as required by GNG and SPORTCRIT. JoelleJay (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the 'keep' argument is incredibly week, its presence precludes closing this as 'soft delete'. Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel, the keep opinion was invalid as it belonged to a notorius block evader. Geschichte (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu

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

This subject doesn't appear to be notable. I scoured through everything for a BEFORE, including Japanese sources, Books sources, sources from the early 2000s, and Scholar sources. I found a genuinely fantastic source from SyFy, which can be viewed here: https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/pokemon-electric-tale-of-pikachu-manga.

Beyond that, though, is very little. There's some trivia articles from Valnet, which generally don't count for notability, but that's about it, and none of them are really SIGCOV of the entire manga series. The current source in the article is half-decent, but it's very barebones coverage (It's generic but it sold well). I found another hit in a scholarly paper, but it was just verifying the same sales info that I found previously. There's an interview source in here, but that falls under WP:PRIMARY, which doesn't count for notability.

There's scattered bits here and there, but nothing here for a strong, concrete article that satisfies any notability guideline. An AtD for now is to List of Pokémon manga. While not the greatest article, it allows for a preservation of page history should stronger sourcing come about, or if that list ever gets a revamp. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Video games, Anime and manga, and Japan. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep - In addition to the SyFy article, there's a review by Ex.org (reliable source per WP:A&M/RS). Technically enough for notability but there's also a short review in Manga: The Complete Guide: [21]. And I wouldn't call this article by CBR trivial: [22], although CBR is marked as "generally unreliable", the author in this case has also written for reliable outlets like Polygon and Nintendo Life, so I wouldn't dismiss it as outright unreliable. And there's a sales article by Comichron (listed at WP:CMC/REF), written by a subject matter expert John Jackson Miller. --Mika1h (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found a review from Spanish print magazine Minami: [23] --Mika1h (talk) 14:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found these sources [24] (brief mention), [25] (sales), [26] (Plot). Timur9008 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above sources; I also found a good article in Screen Rant [27] (considered marginally reliable) and this Mania article is linked in the external links, which is a reliable source. Not to mention Anime News Network previously reported that at one point it was the best-selling comic book in the US [28]. Link20XX (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mania reviews are for the anime series, they should be removed from external links. --Mika1h (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed them. Timur9008 (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize it was an anime review (admittedly was too lazy to read it); that being said, my vote does not change. Link20XX (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This isn't an argument for retention, but something that might point towards sourcing that could show notability. I seem to remember that this series was the first Pokemon manga to be brought over to the United States and given an official translation. The English release dates seem to back this up as well. I'm pulling up some hits in Newspapers.com - I'll go through those and see if they're for this series or not. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was indeed the first English language translation (official, anyway) of any Pokémon manga. I've found some news coverage of this - I'm uncertain of one of the reviews, but did find at least one good one. The one I'm not certain of, it's because the reviewer looks to be young. The picture is low quality so I'm not certain and the review isn't given any of the "reviewed by Jane Smith, age 8" or "Kiddie Korner" type additions that usually accompany child reviews, so I have to assume that it might have gone through more editorial oversight than some of the other reviews, if she is as young as I think she might be.

I'd have liked to have added more. I actually think that there is a very strong chance that there are more sources out there, they're just harder to find because of one (or both) of two reasons: The sources are not available on the Internet or do not allow for searching as one would with Newspapers.com. The sources do not use the specific title of "The Electric Tale of Pikachu" and instead refer to the series along the lines of "Pokemon comics", something that would be pretty easy to do as Viz began publishing the original, longer series immediately after completing the four volumes of TETOP. This newspaper article is a good example of this. It's a short mention about how the first issue of the comics (mentioned in the lead and backed up by the Yadao source) sold extremely well.

With this in mind, when you consider what I did find - and that some of those sources were released years after the last volume was released in 2000 - it does give off the strong impression that more sourcing is probably available. However even without that, I think that the currently available sourcing is enough to establish how the series passes notability guidelines. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something to back this up is that it's extremely likely that some of the anime and manga themed magazines of the time would have reviewed the series as well. Pokemon related topics were kind of a license to print money, so I could see one of the early magazines like Mangazine, Protoculture Addicts, and so on reviewing this. Sure, it's not a guarantee, but this is one of those cases where the existence of such mainstream sources gives off a good faith assumption that more likely exists.

Of note is that we also haven't searched for Japanese language sourcing. The same issues I mentioned above for the English language sources would apply here, but I think it's likely that more reviews and coverage exist in Japanese as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for help at the Pokemon and anime/manga WikiProjects, in the hopes that someone fluent can perform searches. I'm bringing up a lot of hits, but since I'm not fluent I'm unable to refine this so that the results bear fruit more easily. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as a result of some of the finds here. I'm impressed with a few of the more obscure finds I wasn't able to locate, primarily the Ex.org review. Combined with the SyFy source and some of the other sources, this more than passes WP:GNG. I'll see about trying to incorporate some of this content into the article soon. Thank you all for the finds! I honestly thought this wasn't notable at all, so I'm glad to have been proven wrong here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uladzislau Palkhouski

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Belarus. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has exactly the same competition results as Kalehanova (AfD below), so also doesn't meet NSKATE. Searching for sources under romanized and cyrillic names only turned up non-sigcov [29][30]. Toadspike [Talk] 12:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emiliya Kalehanova

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Belarus. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet NSKATE, web searches for romanized and cyrillic names did not turn up any secondary sources. Toadspike [Talk] 12:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Nom.Canary757 (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nelli Ioffe

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, Israel, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet NSKATE and could not find any sigcov with a quick web search. Toadspike [Talk] 12:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Wizardman 01:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Ward (pitcher)

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

As much as I hate to AfD those that have played a professional game of baseball, after getting a PROD tag I scoured old newspaper sources and was unable to find anything whatsoever on this person trying every combination I could think of. Even the game logs for September 1885 turn up empty to the point that I'm questioning if he ever played at all (he does but it took Peter Morris to find anything and even then it's only primary source stuff). Literally the only thing I found of his existence is the Courier-Journal on Sep. 20, 1885, but even then it's only a sentence and goes more on a tangent involving the far superior John Ward baseball player. Wizardman 00:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing thanks to the finding of sources, not sure how you found some of those but happy to see it. Wizardman 01:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Wizardman 00:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Providence Grays all-time roster. He has an entry at Baseball-reference.com for the time being which is good enough to prevent deletion. Looks like we're going to need a List of MLB players who don't meet NSPORTS. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per BX. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." This source (which doesn't even give a first name for pitcher "Ward") is not SIGCOV. The search is complicated by the fact that this player and John Montgomery Ward (sometimes referred to as "John Ward", e.g., here) were both pitchers for Providence in the 1880s. Cbl62 (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: His death announcements include some further biographical details. See here, here and here. Cbl62 (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I expanded it a bit this morning, and given the difficulty of finding sources from the 1880s (for example, the Providence newspaper is not avaialable online from that era), I think the sourcing is now strong enough to keep under WP:NBASIC ("If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."). Cbl62 (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NBASIC per Cbl62. Literally no MLB player whose full name is known has ever been deleted in the 20-plus year history of Wikipedia (see also List of 19th-century Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names) WP:NSPORTS is just a guideline, not a policy. Baseball players were never a problem with NSPORTS. The baby (WP:NBASEBALL) was just thrown out with the bathwater (WP:NSPORTS2022). I think it's silly modern minor leaguers can get articles by passing GNG without ever actually playing in MLB and old-timers like this can get deleted. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after expansion - a decent amount of news sources now. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 00:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khilkov

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

Astonished how long this rubbish has been around. The only source was a WP:SELFPUB WP:OR blog, probably run by the same User:Khilkoff who created this page in 2008. Moscow wasn't "founded" in 1147, but only first mentioned; we've got no idea who founded it and when. But Mr Selfpub Blog is certain that *his* ancestors founded Moscow, and that Wikipedia should mention this "fact". This whole article is genealogical fancruft WP:COATRACK written by one descendant for WP:SELFPROMO about how he and his family are so awesome because they descended from someone who is awesome. At the very least WP:TNT. (No objection to keeping Category:Khilkov family for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value). NLeeuw (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Russia. NLeeuw (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG / WP:SNG. QEnigma talk 13:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:GNG not met, cannot find any adequate sources to replace the one removed. Procyon117 (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly, a quick search revealed little that would contribute to notability. Hence, I think it should be deleted. Tgvarrt (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete this article due to concerns about the paucity of decent sources for a BLP and concerns about possible copyright issues. No penalty though for editors wanting to write a superior article in Draft space that can be submitted to WP:AFC for review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

J. Steven Svoboda

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

This article about a lawyer and activist has been tagged with too much reliance on primary sources since 2016. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added what I can, but am not seeing significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I do not think the article meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Sexuality and gender, United States of America, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - total lack of significant coverage. This is far below what we demand for a BLP, especially an Attorney. This is also just a coat rack for an issue that is best suited for a focused article. Bearian (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - He's a recognized child genital cutting expert, at least for endosex male minors. He has written, probably a lot, in academic journals on matters of law and children's rights surrounding the highly controversial topic of non-therapeutic endosex male child circumcision (partially or full surgical removal of the penile foreskin, which is about one-third of the "motile skin system" of the penis). Also, he has contributed to, and signed, two large international child genital cutting experts statements (in 2024 and 2019), published in the American Journal of Bioethics: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2024.2353823 and https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2019.1643945 Chrono1084 (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 22:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You get a few hits in GScholar, would that be enough to pass academic notability? Not sure what the citation factor for this person is. Oaktree b (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG/NBIO, unlikely to ever pass that threshold. Unclear if he would meet NACADEMIC in regard to the scientific subjects related to his focus. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just found him as an author of a paper on legal aspects of circumcision / MGM - one of relatively few on its topic ('Circumcision of healthy boys - Criminal assault?'), article could definitely stand to be improved and expanded esp. lede but plenty of material to prove notability Al. M. G. 2004 (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG/NBIO and NACADEMIC. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added the two American Journal of Bioethics articles mentioned and three others: a 2003 New York Times, a 2006 Journal of the Catholic Health Association of the United States and a 2013 National Post. Is that enough to keep the article? At least for now (my computer has some problem)? There now seems to be enough academic/scientific articles but I'll try to find some more news/media content. Also, probably don't take into account RomanianObserver41's opinion? This newly created user and another created one, ConeflowerDave, have recently deleted useful information, particularly the two American Journal of Bioethics articles, on another child genital cutting expert: bioethicist Brian Earp. They seem likely part of a relatively long list of, now blocked, accounts used by at least one person to make it difficult to update and improve child genital cutting-related articles. Maybe I should request to investigate them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KlayCax/Archive Chrono1084 (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again in the hope that it will generate commentary/analysis of recently added sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 00:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

del no significant coverage. --Altenmann >talk 03:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you Beeblebrox. I now added 2020 San Bernardino Sun and The New Zealand Herald articles and, more importantly, a 2022 SSM - Qualitative Research in Health and a 2023 Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics articles. There's more to add, maybe even better, if I can find the time. I deleted the {{BLP primary sources|date=March 2016}} because it already seems irrelevant. Involuntary non-therapeutic child genital cutting, including newborn endosex male circumcision, is probably one of the most sensitive topics. It's likely safe to assume that this can explain at least some of the delete votes. If it's ok, I'll be contacting users for a possible vote reevaluation. Chrono1084 (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Much has changed. I've added academic and media articles. There's more to add, when I can. My vote is now "Strong keep".Chrono1084 (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chrono1084 has given 50 plus writings by Svoboda showing he is a big figure. Svoboda is a good personal friend of mine and this appears to be a last ditch, sad attempt to avoid the elephant in the room of male genital mutilation. He is one of the leading experts of child genital cutting. Penises were born perfect. Foreskin is awesome. Cutting the genitals of babies certainly isn't. He has written much on the topic and there's no reason we can't have an article on him. If characters in a video game are important enough to include on here... or baseball cards... he certainly is. Sad to see an attempt to minimize the suffering of men. This appears to be a psychological form of denialism by mutilated men. IntactAndProud (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you IntactAndProud for your comment and edit but, sorry, I'm not really convinced that it helped: it added unsourced content, content from sources seem less present, it reorganized the article but not necessarily in a good way, also it appears more about involuntary non-therapeutic child genital cutting in general than about Svoboda. Please maybe revert your edit and let's just keep the new Red Pill part? Thank you Chrono1084 (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, GNG fail and doesn't appear to pass any of the SNG either. There simply is not the signficant coverage we would expect of a notable subject here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What a complete mess! There is so much POV editing here and the article scores a whopping 89.7% on Earwig's Copyvio Detector! (Yes, that's partially because his book and article titles are so long that they get flagged as similarities but it's not only that.) It's very hard to assess the actual level of notability beyond the fact that there are some hits in Google Scholar and a few passing mention in Google News. If there is a better version to revert to then maybe that is the way forward? Maybe it really is a delete. I don't know. TNT maybe? --DanielRigal (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the POV editing gone now that IntactAndProud's edit was reverted? I'm not sure about the 89.7% Copyvio with the current content: I added many sources and I seem to have quite changed the article's text.Chrono1084 (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  70.7% now. That's better but still not good. DanielRigal (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Ok DanielRigal. Is such a percentage common on Wikipedia? Before my edits, I think a lot of the content came, more or less directly, from https://www.arclaw.org/ I'll try to lower this percentage. Please keep me informed, if you can: I don't know about Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Thank you Chrono1084 (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added some more content. There's more I would like to add.Chrono1084 (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG - citations are all either written by the subject, trivial mentions (quotes from article subject in response to some event), or are unreliable sources (like The Good Men Project, a site described as a webblog that shouldn't be used as a source on a BLP at all). Lots of new text has been added during this AFD, but none of it has helped to cure the sourcing problems. - MrOllie (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Mr Ollie for your comment. I added the The Good Men Project article because one of the main expressed concerns was Svoboda's apparent insufficient media coverage. Because that concern seemed legitimate and to be adressed, it's probably best to keep the Good Men Project article? Apparently, most of its informations can be found elsewhere: for instance, the UN consulting part is in the Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics 2023 article. I'm trying to find a second source for the radio appearances part. About the "internationally acclaimed thought leader on fatherhood and men’s issues" part, author Diane Sears probably thought of Svoboda's contributions, particularly in his column for Everyman magazine, "Gender, Law, and Fatherhood." This was a relatively long time ago so it might be difficult to find other online sources. Chrono1084 (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Good Men Project is a blog. Per WP:BLPSPS it should not used as a source on a biography. You seem to be spending a lot of time on this, but AFD discussion are all about quality sources, and so far you have none - that's the only thing you ought to be spending time on. Expanding the article with substandard sourcing is just going to be wasted effort if this AFD closes as delete. Diane Sears's blog post is unusable. - MrOllie (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is an unrefuted claim that this fails ANYBIO/GNG. No sources have been provided in this AfD and I have conducted my own searches. The subject does, in fact, appear in multiple books and articles, but they are authored by the subject and thus not independent. To show notability for an encyclopaedic biography, we are looking for secondary sources about the subject, telling us who he is and why we should care. Listing his output, including quotations to the media, etc., does not do that. Sources need to be independent, reliable and secondary. We still don't have those. Which, incidentally, is not such a surprise as this nom. is always careful, in my experience, to scrupulously try to expand articles prior to nominating them. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Sebastian Vettel

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

Recreation of a deleted article, WP:CSD#G4. MB 2437 17:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport, Lists, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Reasonable split form main article. Wins are an important part of the bio. --Altenmann >talk 03:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – No, not a reasonable split as previously determined. CSD § G4 applies. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD § G4 (~~Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Juan Manuel Fangio~~Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton). SSSB (talk) 08:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you mean to link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes. Thanks for pointing out my error. Fixed it now. SSSB (talk) 08:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments at the Lewis Hamilton AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Juan Manuel Fangio

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

Several other similar articles for other drivers have been deleted, per this discussion. WP:CRUFT and WP:LISTN. MB 2437 18:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport, Lists, and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Reasonable split from main article. Wins are an important part of the bio. --Altenmann >talk 03:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deemed otherwise in the discussion above, this instance is no different. MB 2437 03:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete – No, not a reasonable split as previously determined. ~~CSD § G4 applies.~~ 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC), amended 08:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is obviously an WP:OTHERSTUFF arguement, so I'm not going to say "see this previous discussion". However, I do think that everything I said in the previous discussion is equally applicable here, so I have copy and pasted my previous arguement with a couple of minor adjustments: the articles of the respective drivers already break-down their races wins in a much cleaner and succinct way - through the race record table (e.g. Juan Manuel Fangio#Complete Formula One results). The nominated articles do nothing other than specify minor details. The only parts of these articles which are unique to these articles (i.e. not already specified on the main driver page) are: date, circuit, grid position and margin which are all either WP:FANCRUFT, WP:NOSTAT or both (e.g. margin and grid position lack any of the context required for this information to be worth anything meaningful.) These articles serve no purpose other than to offer irrelevant and/or contextless data. SSSB (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, it's not an appeal to precedent but we've now had discussed these lists of wins several times at AfD (first in this batch, then this batch, and then finally this batch) and every time we've encountered the same issues. Beyond what you've mentioned regarding the triviality of the statistics, demonstrating notability has also been a recurring issue, and nobody !voting to keep has ever demonstrated how a list like this would pass WP:NLIST. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. MB 2437 09:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments at the Lewis Hamilton AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 1 January 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.