Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 07	February 09 >

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!} 22:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Éva Bisséni

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

She doesn't pass notability guidelines in Brazilian Jiu-jitsu, because her medal was at minor event. (Ju-Jitsu International Federation) As for her Judo accomplishments, I am not convinced she is meeting WP:SPORTCRIT, she didn't make it to the olympics. If anyone finds better sources, I am willing to change reconsider. Citation issues since 2013.. My search didn't establish any WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG. Lekkha Moun (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I see her potentially gaining notability, I suggest keeping in draftspace unitl then. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 19:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She is 44 years old, not competing anymore, I highly doubt it. Lekkha Moun (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Vedicant (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the other reviewers. I also searched on google and could not find notable high quality references. Also the initial article lacked inline references. --Trex32 (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have to agree with the others. Based on what there is now not notable enough unless there is more. ContentEditman (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 Heartland F.C. season

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

This article provides no useful information and there is no indication of sigcov. Also seems to miss WP:NSEASONS and WP:NEVENT. RachelTensions (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Nigeria. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 23:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – And delete 2023-24 Heartland F.C. season. Svartner (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a 100% notable topic if properly developed, but the current article is basically just an infobox and there's only one source. However it's not sticking around in draftspace - keeps getting repeatedly moved back - even though draftification should be the best option here. SportingFlyer T·C 04:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete per nominator, If more useful information cannot be added here then it should be be added to Heartland F.C. page. Information on the page is not enough to have its own page. Jamiebuba (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator. Otherwise merge into the Heartland F.C. page. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 15:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Vedicant (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Skeleton Crew. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skeleton crew

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

WP:DICDEF: If the article cannot be renamed, merged, or rewritten into a stub encyclopedia article about a subject, denoted by its title, then it should be deleted. Paradoctor (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skeleton Crew, a robust dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't I think of that? Paradoctor (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested as AtD. BusterD (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Bondage pornography#Resurgence of bondage magazines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

House of Milan

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

No reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 22:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bondage_pornography#Resurgence_of_bondage_magazines: covered there; add that source: https://chicagoreader.com/film/movie-feature/fetish-media-house-of-milan/. A lot of NSFW results make it hard to check but GBooks has quite a few hits. -Mushy Yank. 22:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sexuality and gender, and United States of America. -Mushy Yank. 22:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and California. • Gene93k (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A cursory Google search came up with this article at Chicago Reader. Not enough by itself for WP:NCORP or a keep !vote yet, but this isn't a serious WP:BEFORE. • Gene93k (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. inadequate sigcov. Vedicant (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above by User:Mushy Yank. Insufficient RS presented or identified. BusterD (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Source analyses by the nom and by Enos733 suggest that regardless of COI issues, the subject fails our notability guidelines. Owen× ☎ 14:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra P. Davis

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

WP:BLP of a county-level politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, county commissioners are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show a significant volume and depth and range of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about their work to establish a reason why they should be seen as substantially more notable than the norm for that level of significance -- but this is referenced far too heavily to primary sources that are not support for notability at all (e.g. stuff self-published by the county council or community organizations she was directly affiliated with), and what there is for reliable source coverage is just the purely run of the mill stuff (local election coverage, etc.) that every county councillor in every county could always show, not demonstrating any reason why she would qualify as a special case of greater notability than the norm.
Simply existing as a county commissioner is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced a lot better than this. Also clear conflict of interest, as the creator's username had "Apdavis" in it — and the page was then moved from draft into mainspace by a WP:SPA editor with a different username but no edit history on any other topic but Alexandra Davis, without the proper WP:AFC review that was required because of the creator's COI. But as always, even people who do properly meet our inclusion standards still aren't entitled to either create their own articles themselves or pay a staffer to do it for them. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Florida. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails both Politicians and judges criteria. As it says Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability.Both (xtools) of the major editors have COI and have only edited this page. As Bearcat said, The sources do not prove she is notable. Most just say she was elected or are primary sources. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 17:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Electricmemory (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep_ As Bearcat pointed out, I see there is an overt conflict of interest (COI), but I believe the subject can meet the notability criteria under WP:GNG. Here are some reliable sources I found within the article:

1. The Gleaner (a 190-year-old Jamaican newspaper) covered her early life, career in public service, and political life in depth.1

2. WPLG covered her role in establishing the in-house social worker position at the Miramar Police Department. 2

3. The Sun Sentinel (the main daily newspaper in Florida) has featured her in two articles, which I could not access for it is behind paywall. 3 4

4. South Florida Caribbean news in 2012 listed her within the top 50 influential black business leaders.5

I also see some more references which covered her for her work in the black diasporas of Jamaicans in US which makes me assume that she is somewhat notable individual in the black Jamaican community in US. Instant History (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails WP:NPOL so the question is whether the subject would pass WP:GNG with an expectation that there is enough coverage to describe the impact the subject made as a member of the county commission (much more than they exist). The Gleaner article describes election results, and the WPLG and Sun Sentinel articles do not provide significant coverage of the subject. The COI issue is relevant too. --Enos733 (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Sources discovered are inadequate for an article. Vedicant (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Source provided by Instant History qualify for WP:BASIC at least Godovereverthing (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Otumfuo Nana Osei Tutu II. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Otumfuo Educational Fund

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redirect - it's already discussed in the ruler's article, and it's not really independently notable. Bearian (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. User:Bearian what target article are you suggesting here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I'm talking about Otumfuo Nana Osei Tutu II as the target article. Bearian (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bearian. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Response

AfDs for this article:

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

I meant to PROD it, but apparently it was nominated for deletion in 2005. Regardless, the only source that confirms this event existed at all was made by a partner organization. I couldn't find any other sources, not even a PR release, documenting it, so it should be deleted for not following the notability guidelines. Norbillian (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. Norbillian (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than some stuff from Getty Images that show this wasn't a hoax, I couldn't find any coverage that meets WP:NORG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Has already been brought to AFD before so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom , Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maffian

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

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

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

I'm not surprised that you think that Maffian didn't meet WP:NALBUM, but the mistake was made by the editor who published this article that didn't provide enough notability. The EP charted on US & UK Apple Music Album chart at #57 & #82 and peaked at number 2 on Nigeria Apple Music Album Top 100 and number 3 at TurnTable Top 100 Albums. [1][2]. Remember Boy Spyce (EP), or Soundman Vol. 2 didn't provide any chart or review to meet WP:NALBUM. MakeOverNow (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 18:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful to hear from more editors about this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This album meets no criteria of NALBUM, as pointed out in the nom. My reasonable BEFORE finds nothing meeting directly detailing RS. BusterD (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mario de Miranda (bridge engineer)

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

No sources provided to link this name to any of the supposed achievements. Searches reveal a number of simimilarly named people but none who are bridge engineers. The original article was draftified some time ago and has been moved to mainpspace by its creator without providing any sources. A web site of his own company asserts that he is a Professor at the University of Venice but that is a self penned sources. It is likely that ths individual is notable as a Professor but this is not that article and cannot be extracted from the current version per WP:TNT. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My larger issue here is COI. Author worked extensively on Italian Wikipedia's article on it and is almost entirely written by them. Their COI is also declared on the itwiki's talk page (and hasn't been declared here).

This article also needs significant cleanup if it intends to remain here, but that can obviously be fixed if this article is able to pass GNG. Chew^{(V • T • E)} 23:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Chew, I made the COI statement on the talk page and I modified the page by lightening the list of publications and inserting a reference for verification on each point. Everything written in the article is true and verifiable. The person who is the subject of the article is, in my opinion, encyclopedic and worthy of being included in Wikipedia. Thank you. Fedem (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added external sources. In particular the international database of structures and several cards of this database. I have formatted according to the guidelines of English Wikipedia. I ask if the changes are sufficient to remove the deletion noticeFedem (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of meeting GNG or NPROF. The page is a mess and will need TNT but that is besides the point of notability, which is not established with the sources or with the achievements and memberships listed. JoelleJay (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here rises to automatic notability; we need WP:GNG-worthy sources, and we don't have them. An individual who was primarily responsible for designing the Great Belt Bridge, say (the first example listed) would certainly be notable, but it was designed by a consortium of three Scandinavian firms, and constructed by more consortia. The linked reference lists his firm as construction engineers for one span of the bridge but even setting aside the distinction between him and his firm that is not the sort of in-depth coverage that counts towards GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear David Eppstein, what you say is not true. Mario de Miranda designed the construction of the suspension deck of the Great Belt Bridge during its construction period from 1995 to 1997. Not the design of the bridge but of the hundreds of construction phases from the construction of the cables to the last segment of the suspension deck. This is documented in many publications that are in the references. He also designed several dozen long-span bridges in various countries around the world. Everything written in the article is true and documented. I think that the person who is the subject of the article is certainly notable and worthy of being included in Wikipedia. Fedem (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - Fedem (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
%Keep has a defined and significant trajectory. AgusTates (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC) striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review would be helpful. Arguments like "has a defined and significant trajectory" are not helpful. To editors unfamiliar with AFD, this is not a "vote" count and it's valued for you to present policy-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ReDraftify. I ran across this AfD after being alerted to this edit at [Great Belt Bridge]. The sourcing there - inline URLs - was difficult to verify; the first claim can't be confirmed from the URL provided, the second can, but with considerable digging. With this AfD, the two most glaring problems are a poverty of sources, and of the sources there are, few are properly formed citations - most are just bare URLs wrapped in <ref> tags. A random check of some of the references hit 'Page not found' as well.

The article in its current condition is not ready for the public encyclopedia, regardless of the other issues identified. The individual may be notable within the context bridge engineering, but better sourcing is required to confirm that acclaim. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I tried to correct the references according to Wikipedia rules. As for the sources cited, it seems to me that all those in the structurae database are secondary sources and all references to Wikipedia articles are third-party sources. In addition, there are several secondary sources from independent Italian portals and therefore I think that these are also valid. I would like the article to be examined by users who are competent in the field of bridge engineering. I am convinced that they would be able to evaluate the notability of the person. Fedem (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sourcing is exclusively primary and non-independent—there is nothing here to analyze for GNG. His impact in bridge engineering has not been demonstrated through NPROF either. There is no reason to draftify when we have no evidence suggesting a path to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear JoelleJay, I disagree with your comment. In my opinion most sources are independent (secondary or third) Fedem (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Database sources, like Structurae, are primary, and anyway none of them have any coverage of de Miranda, they simply name him or his firm. Sources from organizations he belongs to are not independent. You need to find completely independent coverage of him, not of his works. JoelleJay (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.*Keep. The only primary source cited in the article is the official website of Studio de Miranda. All other sources cited are secondary or third party. Even the Structurae database, in my opinion, is a secondary source and has dedicated a page to the person Mario de Miranda. Not only that, but the sources cited are very authoritative sources such as the ECCS (European Convention for Constructional Steelwork) which has recognized a European award for the construction of the Lingotto heliport, or the AICAP (Associazione Italiana Cemento armato precompresso) which is the most important Italian association on reinforced concrete works. This association has recognized him with the medal of honor which is a recognition given to engineers from all over the world who have distinguished themselves in the field of engineering. These two data would be enough to justify the encyclopedic nature of the person. But, in my opinion, the extraordinary importance of the many works carried out is the main reason for the encyclopedic nature. Any engineer who works in the field of bridges could confirm it.Fedem (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck through your Keep vote! as only one vote! per editor. You also have a very strong COI which you reluctantly admitted after some prodding. Please read WP:COI again where it clearly sets out that those with conflict of interest should make their inputs only into Talk page comments. This is not a talk page. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Associations that have recognized him with awards or to which he belongs are not independent. Database listings of specs/data, rather than prose someone has authored specifically discussing the subject, are primary. Non-notable awards, especially from niche, non-notable societies, do not demonstrate notability. JoelleJay (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacking independent sourcing to meet WP:BIO. Also as per WP:NOTRESUME. Lastly the COI agenda is worrying. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added independent sourcesFedem (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being advised several times, you continue to add material to the article despite your COI as a "family member". Please read WP:COI again and note guidance on cotributing to articles where you have COI. For the reord being name-checked in a book, appearing on TV once and giving a Rotary club talk, do not qualify as coveying notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Norwich built-up area

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

Non-notable census area. Sourcing entirely primary to Nomis/ONS, with one additional site that doesn't work. The arguments are set out in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, both of which concluded in Delete. Note that this is one of eight BUAs by the same author that are at AfD. The others being Burnley Built-up area / Birkenhead Built-up area / Barnsley/Dearne Valley Built-up area / Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area / Ipswich built-up area / Accrington/Rossendale built-up area / Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I suggest we merge with the Norwich article. Eopsid (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing to merge. Norwich already has 220 years' worth of census statistics. Uncle G (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As with all of the rest, rationales already given at length in the two prior AFD discussions given in the nomination applying just as equally here, this is a concept that has never escaped its creator. I should add that there are histories of Norwich discussing where its built-up area is, and how it shrank in the 14th century and re-grew in the 17th, but that's not this computer-generated statistical polygon from 2011, or something that in the sources is a concept distinct from Norwich. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Respectable search term, no reason to make it harder for readers to find information. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list at List of urban areas in the United Kingdom which includes it and explains the term. PamD 12:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirect will probably get the consensus, but do we really need this redirect? Yes they are cheap, but there is nothing here worth keeping and the redirect isn't doing anything useful. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as an alternative to deletion. We prefer redirects to deletion when there's a distant possibility that attribution may be useful. That's why they're regarded as cheap alternatives to deletion, because 1) anybody can do it and 2) everybody still has ready access to the complete page history. BusterD (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The view that redirect is preferred is disputed. See, for instance, WT:Deletion policy/Archive 51#Prefatory material on alternatives. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ipswich built-up area

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

Non-notable census area. Sourcing entirely primary to Nomis/ONS, with one additional scrape site. The arguments are set out in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, both of which concluded in Delete. Note that this is one of eight BUAs by the same author that are at AfD. The others being Burnley Built-up area / Birkenhead Built-up area / Barnsley/Dearne Valley Built-up area / Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area / Accrington/Rossendale built-up area / Norwich built-up area / Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there a reason why this (and all the others) can't be redirected to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom? Espresso Addict (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Because they aren't recognized things, or useful redirects. As explained at length in the prior AFD discussions, these are nonce computer-generated polygons used by just one statistical office that no-one else adopted. Rupples has already noted in another of these discussions that not even the creator of these polygons uses them now, and they lasted for 1 census cycle. Uncle G (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't agree. "XYZ built-up area" is a perfectly respectable search term, and what the searcher is looking for appears to be covered in the List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. It's completely irrelevant whether or not the search term is an actual entity or not; we have plenty of redirects for misspellings, typos, former names... Coming down on a formal redirect. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding here for clarity (not going to repeat myself n times but it applies to the others too) -- the list was started in 2004 by Morwen and has nothing to do with the recent articles started by DragonofBatley. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I think this could be merged into the Ipswich article Eopsid (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing to merge. Ipswich already has the town's census statistics. Uncle G (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As with all of the rest, rationales already given at length in the two prior AFD discussions given in the nomination applying just as equally here, this is a concept that has never escaped its creator. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list at List of urban areas in the United Kingdom which includes it and explains the term. PamD 12:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirect will probably get the consensus, but do we really need this redirect? Yes they are cheap, but there is nothing here worth keeping and the redirect isn't doing anything useful. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as an efficient way of maintaining complete attribution while allowing easy recreation when data becomes available in rs. BusterD (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No history is deleted, and material can be restored on request. The view that redirect is preferred is disputed, and does not hold a consensus. See, for instance, WT:Deletion policy/Archive 51#Prefatory material on alternatives. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. asilvering (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan de Leeuw

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this rugby player to meet WP:GNG. There is this routine transfer announcement as well as this paywalled article. Even if the latter was SIGCOV (I'd appreciate if anyone could access it), we would need more coverage to warrant a standalone article. JTtheOG (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dil Wali Gali Mein

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

Sources are all unreliable. Most are un-bylined churnalism and the few that do have bylines are unreliable (ex., Fuchia Magazine). Attempted redirect until the show is released and there are some bylined reviews but redirect was challenged by creator so here we are. CNMall41 (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep : The article for Dil Wali Gali Mein have to be kept as it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for television series. The show has garnered significant attention from multiple reliable media outlets, including Samaa TV, PINKVILLA a Indian entertainment magazine, The Express Tribune a Pakistani leading and major news network, Dunya News, Daily Times (Pakistan), Fuchsia Magazine, a Pakistani entertainment magazine, Minute Mirror, Aaj News, Jang (newspaper), which have covered the television series and highlighted its potential in the context of Ramadan television programming. Furthermore, the involvement of well-known professionals, such as director Kashif Nisar, producer Momina Duraid, and popular actors Sajal Aly, a prominent Pakistani actress who worked on domestic and International level and Hamza Sohail also, adds to the series' notability. Ramadan dramas have a long-standing cultural tradition in Pakistan, and Dil Wali Gali Mein is positioned to be part of this tradition. Given the expected wide reach during Ramadan, the show has the potential to contribute to cultural discourse, making it a noteworthy subject for documentation. Given the media coverage, industry involvement, and the release in the Ramadan month as Ramadan Programming, the article qualifies for retention based on Wikipedia's criteria for notability in the entertainment sector. The article has needs to be kept. Thanks PB987 (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. BilletsMauves^€500 08:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As noted when this was redirected and in the deletion rationale, sources are churnalism and unbylined. I counted a total of four bylined references out of the present WP:REFBOMB, one of which is unreliable and the others are just announcements and likely churnalism based on HUM TV's promotion. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: currently fails WP:SIGCOV, draftify for now. Vestrian24Bio 13:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Vestrian24Bio Thank you for your suggestion regarding the article "Dil Wali Gali", but I believe it meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines and should remain in mainspace rather than being moved to Draft. The topic has received significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, which fulfills Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG). If multiple sources discuss the subject in depth, it qualifies to stay in the main encyclopedia rather than being sent to Draft. The article is supported by reputable media sources, newspapers, or journals, demonstrating its wider recognition. If any improvements are needed, they can be made directly within mainspace rather than requiring a move. Furthermore, similar topics already exist in Wikipedia’s mainspace, which establishes a precedent for keeping this article as well. Since the article is neutral, well-developed, and not promotional, there is no strong reason for it to be moved. Any concerns about citations or formatting can be addressed through improvements instead of removal from mainspace. Per Wikipedia’s policies (WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:N), this article has demonstrated sufficient notability and does not require incubation in Draft space. Instead of moving it, any necessary improvements should be made within mainspace. I look forward to further discussion on this matter. PB987 (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. BilletsMauves^€500 08:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are bylined that constitute significant coverage? At this point, your argument is a fallacy by assertion. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: two bylined although evidently formulaic articles (Lens, Express Tribune) on the page. Coverage about production, notable cast and crew. If judged insufficient please consider a redirect to the director Kashif Nisar#Television. Add this: https://www.pinkvilla.com/tv/news/5-upcoming-pakistani-dramas-that-will-make-ramadan-2025-more-lively-sajal-alys-dil-wali-gali-mein-and-more-1371004 for example. The page has only 2 days and the series will be broadcast in March, so I see no reason to delete now and I am opposed to that outcome. -Mushy Yank. 22:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Still upcoming show, Sources are mostly pre-release fluff pieces, so hold off until actually released or better developed production section. Ravensfire (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Low-level sources plus some fishy history. Tend to think any page reliant on sockpuppetry just to get written can be take with a grain of suspicion, as can picking up and carrying on for this later. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: I think the 2 bylined ones are okay for now, it will likely gain a lot more in like two weeks so I'd say keep for now. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 20:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which two bylined references would you consider significant coverage as everything is based on announcements?--CNMall41 (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete WP:G5. Poor to unreliable sources. Case of WP:TOOSOON and hoping for significant coverage with multiple critical reviews after the release, for the series to be considered notable. RangersRus (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep. Dil Wali Gali is an upcoming television series that has generated significant anticipation due to its notable cast. It has been featured in many reliable sources, highlighting its potential impact on the entertainment industry. With growing interest and buzz surrounding its release, Dil Wali Gali is poised to make a notable entry into contemporary television. I suggest to Keep the article. Zxa123 (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ~SG 5536 B 00:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See here. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly under speedy WP:G5. --Yamla (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did recommend G5 but it was contested. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The best that may be said for the sources presented or found is that they are well-cited speculation. Nothing directly detailing in RS. BusterD (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rinus Vreugdenhil

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

Insufficiant news references, fails WP:NMusician. Jitujadab90 (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jitujadab90 (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of coverage for this individual; I can't find any. Article only has primary or database sourcing. With no Dutch article to compare too, I can't find sourcing we can use to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was about to nominate this myself, I see no significant coverage to establish notability. Ligaturama (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graded English Medium School

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

A quick Google search and no reliable source is found. Failed WP:NSCHOOL. Jitujadab90 (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. Jitujadab90 (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page and does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete– Fails WP:NORG; only trivial coverage and passing mentions found online. EmilyR34 (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area

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

Non-notable census area. Sourcing, there are only two, entirely to the primary Nomis/ONS. The arguments are set out in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, both of which concluded in Delete. Note that this is one of eight BUAs by the same author that are at AfD. The others being Burnley Built-up area / Birkenhead Built-up area / Barnsley/Dearne Valley Built-up area / Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area / Ipswich built-up area / Norwich built-up area / Accrington/Rossendale Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I dont think there are any sources outside of the census and no obvious merge target. The 1966 book conurbations of Great Britain has this to say about the area "In North Wales the coast towns from Prestatyn through Rhyl [then it mentions a load of other towns] are virtually fused one into another but they are excluded here as the process of conurban linkage is hardly complete" Eopsid (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As with all of the rest, rationales already given at length in the two prior AFD discussions given in the nomination applying just as equally here, this is a concept that has never escaped its creator in what is now 12 years. I have Wesley Dougill calling the area from Prestatyn through Rhyl to Llandudno a "a shoddy, unplanned and unsightly blight" in 1936 but that does not make a coherent concept for an encyclopaedia, or state anything factual, and certainly isn't this concept. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless anyone cares to expand the list at List of urban areas in the United Kingdom to include smaller ones as far down the list as this one. PamD 12:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area

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

Non-notable census area. Sourcing entirely to the primary Nomis/ONS data. The arguments are set out in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, both of which concluded in Delete. Note that this is one of eight BUAs by the same author that are at AfD. The others being Burnley Built-up area / Birkenhead Built-up area / Barnsley/Dearne Valley Built-up area / Accrington/Rossendale Built-up area / Ipswich built-up area / Norwich built-up area / Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I think theres more sources out there which havent been added to this article yet. The 1966 book "Conurbations of Great Britain" on page 244 says "Lancaster, Morecambe and Heysham have now fused into a single small conurbation. Eopsid (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, how are you not reading that source properly? You aren't even reading what you quoted. "Lancaster, Morecambe and Heysham" is not "Lancaster/Morecambe". And a book from 1966 does not and cannot support a statistical polygon from 45 years in its future. That's the sort of propping up by synthesis source abuse that the article creator does. Uncle G (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - The map on this article clearly shows it includes Heysham. That book and the 2021 census are both talking about the same conurbation but defining and naming it differently. Eopsid (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As with all of the rest, rationales already given at length in the two prior AFD discussions given in the nomination applying just as equally here, this is a concept that has never escaped its creator. The best that one can get even approximating this is sources talking about Lancaster, Morecambe, and Heysham, as Eopsid has mis-read above; but they're usually in fact talking about the self-containedness of the Lancaster District and its Travel-To-Work Area in the middle 20th century. In fact, the eagle eyed will spot that one of the external links is even about the Lancaster District. Well, as ever with the synthesized false areas/suburbs articles from this article creator, we already had an article for the City of Lancaster District, and it is not a "Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area". Delete. Uncle G (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless anyone cares to expand the list at List of urban areas in the United Kingdom to include smaller ones as far down the list as this one.
Delete – Per nom. Vedicant (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Clearly not notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barnsley/Dearne Valley built-up area

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

Non-notable census area. Sourcing, only two, to the primary Nomis/ONS, and a scrape site that doesn't appear to mention the term. The arguments are set out in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, both of which concluded in Delete. Note that this is one of eight BUAs by the same author that are at AfD. The others being Burnley Built-up area / Birkenhead Built-up area / Accrington/Rossendale Built-up area / Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area / Ipswich built-up area / Norwich built-up area / Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As with all of the rest, rationales already given at length in the two prior AFD discussions given in the nomination applying just as equally here, this is a concept that has never escaped its creator in what is now 12 years. We should be grateful that the article creator didn't do more string matching with that Freeman book from 1966, because the reality is that Freeman discusses "a string of large mining villages" that extends "from Rawmarsh into the Dearne Valley to Barnsley and beyond". So not support for a statistical polygon 45 years into the book's future, or even for the same area. And of course, as ever, the article to explain the obvious connection between mining villages on the South Yorkshire Coal Field (using, say, historian Melvyn Jones's South Yorkshire Mining Villages, ISBN 9781473880795) is South Yorkshire Coalfield. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Respectable search term, no reason to make it harder for readers to find information. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list at List of urban areas in the United Kingdom which includes it and explains the term. PamD 12:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Birkenhead built-up area

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

Non-notable census area. Sourcing entirely to Nomis/ONS, with there only being one. The arguments are set out in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, both of which concluded in Delete. Note that this is one of eight BUAs by the same author that are at AfD. The others being Burnley Built-up area / Accrington/Rossendale Built-up area / Barnsley/Dearne Valley Built-up area / Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area / Ipswich built-up area / Norwich built-up area / Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one passing mention in Google scholar, and a recent mention of a built up area around Birkenhead on the government website shows a completely different area[3]. Orange sticker (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Confusingly for the latest census they've redefined what built up area means. Previously built up areas were made up of built up area subdivsions. But for the latest census the subdivisions have been renamed built up areas and they form built up conglomerations together. But they havent released the data for conglomerations yet. Theres more information on it here [4]. Eopsid (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not confusing at all once one realizes that this is a nonce concept made up by a computer for one statistical analysis, that never escaped its creator to be acknowledged by anyone else, and that even its creator has now discarded. Uncle G (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As with all of the rest, rationales already given at length in the two prior AFD discussions given in the nomination applying just as equally here, this is a concept that has never escaped its creator in what is now 12 years. The only thing coming even close to this grouping that actually is acknowledged by the world is the old hundred of Wirral, and not only do we already have an article on that (as ever with this article creator), that's not very close to this grouping at all. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Respectable search term, no reason to make it harder for readers to find information. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense, agreed. Orange sticker (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list at List of urban areas in the United Kingdom which includes it and explains the term. PamD 12:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accrington/Rossendale built-up area

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

Non-notable census area. Sourcing entirely primary to Nomis/ONS, with one additional scrape site. The arguments are set out in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, both of which concluded in Delete. Note that this is one of eight BUAs by the same author that are at AfD. The others being Burnley Built-up area / Birkenhead Built-up area / Barnsley/Dearne Valley Built-up area / Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area / Ipswich built-up area / Norwich built-up area / Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to one website (assuming it's reliable) this BUA existed from 2011 to 2022 and is now classed as inactive.[5] Rupples (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I think they redefined the BUAs for the 2021 census but they havent released the data for it yet. Eopsid (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Seems to be a lack of WP:SECONDARY coverage of this built-up area to enable a GNG pass. Sources in the article are the Office for National Statistics, which defined the area and citypopulation.de, which replicates data. Needs commentary in addition to a definition and data. Not sure a single redirect would work. Possible multiple merges into the constituent settlement articles, but is there any point given the lack of coverage of the term? Rupples (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC) Added redirect as AtD now a suitable target has been put forward. Rupples (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources outside of the 2011 census and mirrors of that data. This area didnt exist as one built up area in the previous 2001 census which considered Accrington and Rossendale seperately. Other sources like the book "The conurbations of Great Britain" also treat the Accrington and Rossendale areas as seperate built up areas/conurbations. So I dont think we are going to find any more sources. Eopsid (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've discussed this at length in the two prior AFD discussions, the long explanations of the statistical polygons never having escaped their creators in what is now 12 years I won't repeat. We can thank good fortune for the article creator, unlike in the case of Burnley built-up area (AfD discussion), not trying to prop up this article with false sourcing from Freeman's 1966 book, which string matches Accrington and Rossendale on page 241, but which does not support this idiosyncratic statistical polygon from 45 years in its future. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Respectable search term, no reason to make it harder for readers to find information. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list at List of urban areas in the United Kingdom which includes it and explains the term. PamD 12:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Groovenexus

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:NCORP. CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not noteworthy. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some promotional coverage of acts they've signed, but I can't find anything beyond four hits in Gnews that basically confirm the company exists and does buisness. Oaktree b (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails to meet WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack sig cov., fails WP:NCORP TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP. EmilyR34 (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom , Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

APUS Group

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

Almost entirely promotional and not indication of WP:SUSTAINED notability per WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Company makes product. All the sources are nine or ten years old, nothing more than fundraising and other routine business coverage. BusterD (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. The LOL article is mostly just a definition of the term, which belongs on Wiktionary instead. While LOL is a popular slang term, the article doesn't provide enough in-depth information beyond what a dictionary already covers.

If we keep this, should every internet abbreviation (BRB, OMG, ROFL) get its own page too? Instead of having separate articles for every slang term, it's better to merge this into a broader article on internet slang or just redirect it to Wiktionary. 1keyhole (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Internet. 1keyhole (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I won't litigate other abbreviations here. LOL is a notable term with an encyclopaedic history worth preserving; the current state of the article doesn't impact that the topic is notable and could be expanded ([6]) — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are cases where terms have articles because sources provide commentary on their history and social significance, which wouldn't be described in much detail on an average dictionary. There is coverage on the history out there, not to mention all those reputable sources on the analysis section, which wouldn't fit a dictionary. Other terms like OMG are individually evaluated by their own merits. Maybe the "Variations on the theme" section could be cut down, but that can be fixed by editing. ObserveOwl (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The variations section always needs cutting down, and for years I kept doing that (e.g. Special:Diff/34413823). The problem is that that part of the article is a magnet for unverifiable invented stuff. Ironically, that was what the whole article looked like back in its early years. Vide Special:Permalink/17843080 for example. The vandalism did settle down somewhat when it stopped being just a laundry list of examples with no actual verifiable linguistic analysis at all, yet another example of how one successfully tackles cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing.
  The nominator's argument that this somehow sets a precedent of some kind is entirely based upon total ignorance of Wikipedia history. We've managed to keep dictionary articles on all of the nonce words out for almost 2 decades at this point by having this article. Witness Roflcopter (AfD discussion) and Lollerskates (AfD discussion) for just two AFD examples and the many redirects at Special:Whatlinkshere/LOL.
  Feel free to prune the unsourced overgrowth of non-Wiktionary variations yet again in my stead. It turns out that I am busy with a bizarre combination of an old onion railway in Indiana, a 19th century French poet-cum-botanist-cum-geographer, and some machine-generated places in the U.K.. And Marshall Fields. ☺
  Uncle G (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, borderline speedy. This is clearly a topic that has been covered in ways that give it an encyclopedic scope. BD2412 T 17:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The LOL article is mostly just a definition of the term is simply not true. The term is culturally significant and the article includes details about its influence, reception, and spread, the majority of which could not be reasonably included in a dictionary. (As another user pointed out, the lack of articles for other abbreviations is not a valid argument, but FWIW some of them are covered in the article you have nominated for deletion...) Pink Bee (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article goes well beyond a dictionary definition. It has well sourced sections on history and analysis that clearly meet WP:GNG. I don't find any of the reasons that OP has proposed to be valid WP:DELREASONS. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG is not particularly relevant here, as the issue is not about general notability but rather whether the article aligns with Wikipedia's content policies. WP:NOTDICTIONARY is key—while the article may go beyond a simple definition, that alone doesn’t justify its inclusion if it primarily serves an explanatory rather than encyclopedic purpose. The presence of sourced history and analysis doesn’t automatically override concerns about scope and purpose 1keyhole (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOTDICTIONARY has a section about articles like this: WP:WORDISSUBJECT. I believe that applies here. In particular, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term is a remarkably good description of what is in the LOL article. Pink Bee (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello what idk (talk • contribs) 18:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:IAR - regardless of whether there is enough information beyond a dictionary definition, our core readers will be expecting to see this on top when then use Google or another search engine. Bearian (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly meets WP:GNG and is an incredibly popular phrase to the point where there are academic sources on it. "Not a dictionary" doesn't apply here. jolielover♥talk 05:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree! Trojanosos (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did nom read the article? This article very clearly goes beyond a dictionary definition and meets WP:GNG. And plus I don't even think that Wikipedia not being a dictionary would even apply here as LOL has much more history than the examples that nom listed above. IncompA 17:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. Hoax/spam. UtherSRG (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Davi Santiago de Souza

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

Notability is not established. Fails WP:BIO. WP:BOMBARD is always suggestive of a PR effort. I see that here. I do not see reliable sources; instead I see churnalism. This is WP:ADMASQ. I also have no idea what the link farm is at the foot of the article. This is again highly indicative of PR material. I suspect we are WP:TOOSOON. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Brazil. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sources are promo-like and unreliable. Skyshiftertalk 16:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All sources fail WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editor, I recognize your dedication to making Wikipedia an increasingly better space. Do not delete this encyclopedia. See that Davi Santiago de Souza, no matter how young he is, already makes a big difference as a young mentor, we should, as conscious people, allow him to be seen by others. If it is necessary to reformulate the text, we will do that, not just request removal. This is what inexperienced editors do who do not seek to solve the problem, but rather forget about it. Enzo Duart (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to the eventual closer: I feel we must interpret this as keep even though there is no policy based rationale.

I suppose I must now accept that I am an inexperienced editor, setting my edit count against the edit count of @Enzo Duart. What they do not understand is that my opinions count for precisely as much or as little as theirs. While this is not a ballot, I and they have precisely as much influence as each other. However, those who argue from a policy standpoint make the better case. I am not belittling their edit count nor an I emphasising mine. I am simply setting them straight on the point they make regarding assumptions of experience.

I invite them to offer a policy based rationale to keep the article, please. Offer it once and well, and you may change my mind. I will not enter into a dialogue about it here, though. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You crack me up, FF! - UtherSRG (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow @UtherSRG and you still want to be seen as a professional. You read the opinion of an editor friend and start mocking. Friends, let's just accept that Wikipedia needs to be improved, and we are that improvement. We will not allow editors, no matter how old they are, like @UtherSRG, to make us fail in our mission: Creating a better place on Wiki. After all, we are a family, right? And@Timtrent, know that many edits do not mean he is better than you. Because we thought that only an adult could be a mentor, and we are debating about a 15-year-old. I end by saying: May God bless you! Enzo Duart (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Enzo Duart: Please "read the room" and see what the appropriate format of a response here is. we should, as conscious people, allow him to be seen by others is very much a statement that is counter to what Wikipedia is about and is inherently promotional. Our requirements for inclusion in the encyclopedia involve a particular definition of notability. You would do well to understand that before insisting that something belongs here. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG Do not judge this request by my speech which you misinterpreted. I do not want to create a promotional article. If I wanted to, I think I would be asking you for help to correct it and make it only informative and without at any time seeking to promote the young. Enzo Duart (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is incredibly promotional and is too soon for sure. WP:PROMO WP:TOOSOON. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktkvtsh This is what makes me upset, when someone sees that there is a problem (promotional content) and doesn't try to solve it, they just delete it and that's it. Do you really think an experienced editor would do that? Please understand me, I just want notable figures like Davi Santiago, who seek to make a difference, to have a space, even if it's a small one, on Wikipedia. Enzo Duart (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without even considering notability, the article was written with an overwhelming tone of promoting him.

Was it written with AI? Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, @Enzo Duart, you are banging the experienced editor drum again, and that is starting to become uncivil. Please do n0t keep telling editors in good standing that they lack experience. For reference their edit count is pleasingly substantial. Here, that equates to experience. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktkvtsh@Timtrent@UtherSRG Forgive me for my words, you really are good editors, I have seen some of your edits. I ask that you be professional and analyze my case. I am available to help in whatever way is necessary. Enzo Duart (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Enzo Duart: We have been. We have done so. We've found the article and the subject, lacking. Your zeal is honorable, but misplaced; it amounts to refusal to listen. Please listen to us. And finally, you've made your point, now please step aside and stop bludgeoning. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, a lot of arguments here are "well it might notable, but too soon", that's why we have drafts (see WP:DRAFTREASON, we check off 1 and 3 here, and maybe 2). Deleting is too harsh here, and perhaps a conflict of interest is here as well. This article should be drafted and should not enter the mainspace until it passes through WP:AfC. Chew^{(V • T • E)} 23:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your support @Chew Enzo Duart (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A great example of WP:PIG. Svartner (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Editor, thank you for your comment. I would like to clarify that my goal in creating this article was not to promote the young mentor, but simply to register him on Wikipedia. The story is that he guided my daughter, Graziela, in writing the book An Unshakable Woman. I have always believed in the potential of Wikipedia to finance promising careers, and I decided to contribute by registering his work. I am sure that he will be pleased and that this record will be of help to those who seek his guidance. Enzo Duart (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Admin Comment, Enzo Duart has been p-blocked from here and the article. Star Mississippi 00:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. This guy again? We've been deleting their uploads over on Commons since December. Both this account and user:MentorZero are indeffed on pt.wiki for spamming, and this account is now indeffed on Commons for socking. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a four person sock farm and one additional editor indeffed on ptWiki and Commons. All have been awarded global locks. This appears to be part of a cross WMF sites spam campaign 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Bible Broadcasting Network. ^Complex/_Rational 16:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WYBX

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

Does not seem to be notable. All three refs only provide technical information about the subject. DWF91 (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Christianity, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bible Broadcasting Network, the parent company. WYBX is not independently notable, and relevant technical information is already there. schetm (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bible Broadcasting Network#Stations: the station did exist for about seven-ten years before BBN took over, but probably did not attain any significant coverage in that time; any notability here, if there were any, would be carried over from that era entirely. The article going back to that era, however, still makes this little more than a remnant of the considerably lower inclusion standards of 2008, when this topic area considered FCC licenses to be a notability sign; that largely faded away after the 2021 RfC that deemed the GNG to be the notability standard here. I think this came under the NPP radar because of an aborted BLAR by Chuterix (talk · contribs), the undo of which was never fully explained, but the reality is it was a correct BLAR, as the rationale not notable on its own appears accurate. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bible Broadcasting Network, as the same reasons as schem and WcQuidditch (fails WP:GNG). Chuterix (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bible Broadcasting Network, as I can't find anything about its pre-BBN operation anywhere. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 08:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. WP:G7, requested by creator. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swissborg

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

Promotional. No evidence of notability under WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE shows only coverage in crypto sites. Needs some RSes up to the standards of WP:NCORP. PROD removed without adding suitable RSes. - David Gerard (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, Companies, and Switzerland. David Gerard (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: also along with the crypto sources 2 of them are duplicates. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 20:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Thelwell

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

Footballer and football coach who according to the article made no pro appearances and has to date totalled 2 days as a pro club manager, as interim Derby manager,18 years ago. Lacks significant coverage. C 679 13:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. C 679 13:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 13:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below which show notability. Ping below didn't work as you didn't sign your post properly. Giant Snowman 20:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Poorly-formatted article without evidence of notability. Sources are mostly transfer announcements and brief mentions. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, @Clariniie:, I found [7], [8], and [9] among many more sources over the years. Clearly significant figure in English football management with ongoing career in Premier League club. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, 17:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Keep Lots of coverage/hits on a google kevin thelwell nytimes.com search in addition to other sources presented.Canary757 (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
which can be read here [10] and [11] as examples.Canary757 (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—This is a clear keep. The article is terrible, but that's not what we're here for. The three examples presented above are very obviously WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Airwolf. I see a consensus to Merge the two articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Airwolf (helicopter)

AfDs for this article:

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

Plot summary plus a bit about the film prop and its history, as well as some replicas. Longer and with many refs, but I couldn't find anything that is reliable and WP:SIGCOV, so this fails WP:GNG, and has some WP:OR issues too. BEFORE fails to find anything. Per WP:ATD-R, I suggest this can be redirected to Airwolf. PS. Keep from ~10 years ago was based on the fact that passing mentions of this have been found here and there, and of course, that it was a "main feature of a notable work of fiction" (which back then was enough for many folks... how time have changed, eh?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Military, and Aviation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a whole to Airwolf. Being a "main feature of a notable work of fiction" is still absolutely a basis for inclusion in an encyclopedia, but in this case both articles are short enough that they would benefit from the information being in a single place. BD2412 T 17:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A fictitious helicopter, from a television series not sufficiently well-known worldwide, doesn't seem to be worthy of note. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Airwolf is certainly notable and I would agree with BD2412 as to the virtues of a merge here. However we have a substantial body of content about the real world helicopter used for filming and so we get to the question of balance and structure of the article. Is that best as a single article, swollen by this section? Or by separating it out, as we have at present? We can justify either according to policy, but I see the best results as being how it is at present. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Airwolf was pre-Internet, so I'm expecting there will be plenty of offline sources. For example, I can find Spark, A. (1989). Flight Controls: The Social History of the Helicopter as a Symbol of Vietnam. In: Walsh, J., Aulich, J. (eds) Vietnam Images: War and Representation. Insights. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19916-7_6 but I don't have access to the whole chapter to see if the snippet Google Scholar brings up is sufficiently significant. And, of course, no objection to a merge to the series article, although I disagree that in any case it should be forced as an AfD outcome. Jclemens (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do have access to the source and mentions of the words "Airwolf" are primarily in context of the plot of the show and, in my view, don't provide WP:SIGCOV for the fictional aircraft itself. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Unless drastically improved, there is no real keep argument here since there is a legitimate place to point it and it is, as a whole, unencyclopedic, failing WP:NOT regardless of its notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the helo exists outside the show with a well-sourced history. - \\'cLf 07:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewolfchild Which nobody has been able to demonstrate yet... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a whole article full of such info, with sources, on the page you're trying to delete...? - \\'cԼF 01:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild Nope, as you can see from comments here, nobody has been able to point out a single source like that. You are welcome to identify at least two WP:SIGCOV meeting sources and prove me wrong. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(ping not req'd, I'm subbed) What I see in the comments is a wide majority in favour of keeping or merging. And the onus of proof isn't on me, it's in the nominator. Wait... that's you, isn't it? There's 22 refs on the page, are you saying they're all useless or garbage? - \\'cԼF 02:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The onus in the ones adding or wanting to keep the content, per WP:BURDEN. And yes, I have not identified refs meeting SIGCOV while covering NONPLOT issues. Which is why we have 6 votes to delete/merge/redirect and only 3 for keeping, perhaps... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Airwolf. When paired back to what can be written based on coverage in WP:RSs (and not e.g. blogs, twitter posts, the work itself etc) this could easily fit into the main article, whereas a standalone article seems to fail WP:N. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per all. This doesn't have enough WP:SIGCOV for its own article. but I note that some of the keep !votes support merge, and the nominator supports a redirect, per WP:CONSENSUS. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Airwolf - per WP:NOPAGE. As stated, neither article is long enough to the point where a split would be necessary due to length, and it makes more sense to cover the show and its titular vehicle in the same article. Rorshacma (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Blue Thunder. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Thunder (helicopter)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fictional 'copter, and a film prop. Poorly referenced to a YouTube video, and various primary materials. Poorly written WP:FANCRUFT that at best, per WP:ATD-R, could be redirected to Blue Thunder (the movie it originally appeared in). PS. It's interesting to consider how our standards have changed in the 11 years since prior AfD; where arguments like "it's enough that it is well written and has some references", "it is notable in the context of the series", and "it is a major part of a story of a notable work" held sway... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Aviation, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a whole to Blue Thunder. There is sufficient basis for inclusion of this subject in an encyclopedia, but both articles are short enough that they would benefit from the information being in a single place. BD2412 T 17:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as BD2412. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. Unlike Airwolf, there was nothing particularly special about the helicopter, either in fiction or in real life. Jclemens (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as stated above. Notable helicopter info can be covered at Blue Thunder or other similar article. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. Just doesn't have enough reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as cultural significance in both film and aviation is noteworthy. Both articles can benefit from each other in one. Calling for deletion outright is unnecessarily extreme. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 22:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is enough to save some information. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Aubrey–Maturin series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Polychrest

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

Fictional ship. Short plot summary and that's all; my BEFORE failst to find anything better. Per WP:ADT-R, suggest redirecting this to the Aubrey–Maturin series. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Military, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aubrey–Maturin series, fails WP:GNG. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sought this article to learn about the historically vessel(s) O'Brian based this ship upon, a literary practice he was known for. I found the information I needed and links to the Wikipedia pages about those real ships.I could never have found that info without this article. It should be retained. Hal Sawyer. 108.4.208.55 (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Boneless Pizza. Fails WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Zipang (manga). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JDS Mirai

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

Fictional ship. Pure plot summary, no WP:GNG. My BEFORE fails to find anything, and while I cannot search in Japanse I would be very, very surprised if such a niche topic had any sources in any language. Per WP:ATD-R, we can redirect this to Zipang (manga). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Military, and Japan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airwolf (helicopter) (2nd nomination). A fictitious helicopter doesn't seem to be worthy of note. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I'll note that the above delete !vote has no policy basis. Jclemens (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zipang (manga) per nom; this article is almost entirely plot and has little real-world notability. Link20XX (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, per nom. Doesn't have enough reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG, or even have anything worth preserving. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zipang (manga) – Notable enough for being a section of the main article, but not for WP:FORK. Svartner (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Last Ship (novel). The one "keep" opinion makes not policy-based argument. Sandstein 15:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

USS Nathan James

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

Fictional ship from a novel (also a TV series based on it). Pure plot summary. Fails WP:GNG; BEFORE finds nothing useful. Suggest redirecting to The Last Ship (novel) per WP:ATD-R. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Military, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Since it is featured in more than one creative work. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 17:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
by which you mean, "a book, and an adaptation of that book"? DS (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Illegitimate Barrister FYI that has not been a sufficient reason for keeping for a long time. A zillion stuff appears in more than one creative works - so what? WP:NOTTVTROPES, this is just WP:FANCRUFT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to the book. It doesn't matter if the book has an adapatation, we can't have articles without WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Bansal

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

Simply holding the position of secretary or national secretary of a political party does not satisfy the WP:NPOL criteria, and the subject also fails to meet the WP:GNG requirements. Baqi:) (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Baqi:) (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only held party offices and not elected to any state or national legislative assemblies. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete– as per nom, fails both WP:GNG & WP:NPOL. EmilyR34 (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vital Spark

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

Major WP:GNG and WP:V failure. Very poorly referenced piece of WP:FANCRUFT, summarizing a plot point (history of a fictional ship), and cataloging its appearances in various media, making WP:ORish claims that "The stories sparked considerable interest in the puffers, and many books explore their now vanished world." (in any case, if the stories sparked interest, that's not the same as this fictional ship doing that...). The articles does not even make the claim that one particular work or series is relevant to this ship, so I am not even sure what might be a plausible redirect target (per WP:ATD-R. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Transportation and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has also been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland._{Cactus.man ✍} 15:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ If sources can't be found to meet GNG, I'd suggest merging to Para Handy - that's the article about this long-running franchise as a whole, and the information about the various TV series featuring the Vital Spark is duplicated there (whereas it currently doesn't even have a photo of the ship). Adam Sampson (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A merge or redirect are always better than outright deletion, thanks for the suggestion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a Keep now with the new sources. Adam Sampson (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Para Handy per the suggestion by Adam Sampson. The term "Vital Spark" will have widespread recognition amongst Scottish readers and those of wider literary awareness, but two of the three Notes in the article are currently dead links. I think encyclopaedia coverage is therefore still warranted. Cactus.man ✍ 16:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep in light of the substantial improvement work done by Drchriswilliams to bring the article up to sufficient standard that it now easily satisfies WP:GNG Cactus.man ✍ 21:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. I'd be happy to withdraw this after improvements, but I don't see them. As in, there are some changes, but I still do not see any analysis/reception or such; all that is written and referenced is pretty much what appears to be a 'list of ships with that name in fiction and real life'.
_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was surprised to see an article with such an iconic name nominated, but I found the article was in bad shape. While the name started off as fiction, there came to be several vessels associated with the name. There is plenty of coverage in newspapers of Vital Spark Clyde puffers that have appeared in the various television series. Several of the articles feature pictures of the vessels. I have added a range of sources over several decades. I've edited the lead to reflect this. There is a bit of duplication of content across the articles on Neil Munro, Para Handy and the three series. The Para Handy article isn't particularly well referenced but some of the plot-related content could be moved to those if it helped to keep it in one place. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while I am a bit hesitant still, the article has been expanded to a stage where I'd feel confident in letting this stay around. Unopposed to further discussion in the future, but for now these sources definitely seem to illustrate the subject has some degree of notability. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raghunatha Reddy

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

Can't find any interviews or media articles that are about him. The only thing that I can find is passing mentions in Idlebrain.com reviews [12]. He seems to have played the father character in some films and minor characters in some films. I can only find sources about Palle Raghunatha Reddy. DareshMohan (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's not quantity of films that matter, but quality of coverage that matters. Bearian (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. No significant coverage on the subject's career in the sources and no coverage is any significant roles were played by the subject. Two of the 4 sources are unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES. RangersRus (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:NACTOR as a (very) prolific actor. Actually, some of his numerous (400?) roles in notable productions are not minor so he might also meet the general criterion for actors (same guideline, only a line above). The page can be improved with coverage such as https://www.thehansindia.com/cinema/an-actor-par-excellence-661445 (which contains an interview). -Mushy Yank. 00:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree there's no significant coverage. Don't understand obsessions with pushing things through with hot garbage sources, but here we are again. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I, the nominator, withdraw, my nomination in light of the new source added. DareshMohan (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What new source? HansIndia is not independent of the subject. It's an interview. I do not see any reason to withdraw this AFD as no significant coverage exists in secondary independent sources. If you do find 2 or more secondary independent sources with significant coverage on the career and achievements of the subject, then it would be ok to withdraw and please let me know so that I can review and change vote but as of now no reason to withdraw I see. RangersRus (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is a notable actor. Has a reliable independent source. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 5:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Keep: He is a prolific actor and has had substantial roles in several films. There are some full-length Telugu media articles on him that I remember reading, but they are not available online. L5boat (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Care to revote? @Hyperbolick: Did you see The Hans India interview? I’m surprised Mushy Yank found it in the first place as I didn’t find in my WP:BEFORE. As per RangersRus's comment, the interview albeit not being independent goes in depth on the subject's vast theatrical career and even won 1+ awards. Bearian's comment about Indian media deprecation is still valid since this actor was less active after 2008/2009 and did not act in the 2020s. See their comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shalabam.

Deleting a recognized Telugu actor is not something I'm willing to do. Had I found the interview source on my own, I would never have nominated this article for deletion in the first place. DareshMohan (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Churn and burn

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

"Churn and burn" is an expression in English, but the claim that it specifically refers to an anti-union tactic is dubious. The only reference in this article is a dead link to what appears to have been a minor news bit that was tangentially related at best. Google results reveal the phrase being used in many contexts with many meanings, but all references to it as a union-busting tactic seem to derive from this article, and even if some earlier reference could be found it would only be one of many uses of this stock expression. We don't have an article for "kill two birds with one stone" and we certainly don't describe it as concept in efficiency theory because one article used the expression. We should stop the cycle of citogenesis. -- LWG ^talk 15:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I researched this, and there's not a coherent concept by this name to be had; lots of uses of the phrase, but all disconnected. I cannot find a way to turn that into an article, and what is here already from 2011 is a stretch. Idiosyncratic non-topic, as deletion policy used to say. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hanli Hoefer

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

Single liner article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 08:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 08:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2012 AFF Championship squads#Laos. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:00, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daoneua Siviengxay

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

Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV. First name or last name may be misspelled. Unable to find name in original script, which made searches difficult. C 679 08:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Laos. C 679 08:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 08:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2022 PROD removed with rationale at this Old revision of Daoneua Siviengxay. C 679 08:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2012 AFF Championship squads#Laos – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of islands of the Maldives. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities, towns and villages in the Maldives

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

The article only lists the cities and atoll capitals, which List of islands of the Maldives already do. This article could be redirected to that article since it fits WP:ATD-R. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 08:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Maldives. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 08:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be best to merge the articles? Barseghian Lilia (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~:Why is that? Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 16:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep It's a list that's clearly a part of an established set of articles. Just because it's duplicative doesn't mean we can't have it - someone looking for this list may not know to go to the List of islands of the Maldives. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Administrative divisions of the Maldives, which already has prose about cities and atolls and tables with all of the atoll capitals and cities. I see no need for this duplicative page (there is nothing to even merge it seems), and a redirect and updated links will help users find this. Reywas92^Talk 19:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Administrative divisions of the Maldives~~ [edited: see comment below] as suggested by Reywas. A redundant fork. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we have two different Merger/Redirect target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of islands of the Maldives, makes the most sense as it lists in detail islands and their subdivisions (i.e. cities, towns or villages), while the other article primarily serves to discussion how the country is administratively organized. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to List of islands of the Maldives is also an acceptable outcome in the interest of consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to THQ Nordic#Subsidiaries. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Lamp

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

It appears to struggle with notability. Coverage appears to be around Harald Riegler and THQ Nordic's acquisition. Found this article from Der Standard for the latter. Perhaps merging into the legacy of Sproing Interactive or into THQ Nordic? IgelRM (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Austria. IgelRM (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to THQ Nordic#Subsidiaries – Where the studio was mentioned. Svartner (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to THQ Nordic. There is some WP:TRIVIALMENTION that isn't significant enough for its own article, but it an important enough fact to document somewhere. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ by Jimfbleak per G11. (non-admin closure) ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 09:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Metin Durmaz

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

This page may be considered for deletion because it does not have enough references to demonstrate notability according to Wikipedia guidelines. The article is missing coverage from independent, reliable sources, relying instead on self-promotion or primary sources, which is crucial to satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards for individuals in business and entrepreneurship. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Tagged under WP:G11 as a promotional vanity page. Tag was removed by the nom due to an edit conflict, but I've now re-added it accordingly. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am withdrawing my nomination. I completely agree with User:CycloneYoris, so please close this discussion as this is clearly a WP:G11 case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garvitpandey1522 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ras Opoku

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

Article about musical artist that does not satisfy musical notability or general notability. Nothing in the text of this article addresses any of the musical notability criteria or refers to third-party significant coverage. This article was draftified six months ago and has been moved back to article space, and so is a contested draftification that should not be unilaterally moved back to draft space again. A review of the sources shows that they are a user-generated biography, an interview, and listings by music streaming services. There is no independent secondary coverage.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	www.deezer.com	Biographical sketch on site that has user-generated content	No	Yes	No. User-generated.	No
2	www.graphic.com.gh	An interview.	No	Yes	?	No
3	music.apple.com	A listing on a music streaming service	No. Anyone can list their music.	No. Says that the recording is available.	Yes, but only as to the existence of the recording.	No
4	music.apple.com	A listing on a music streaming service	No. Anyone can list their music.	No. Says that the recording is available.	Yes, but only as to the existence of the recording.	No
5	music.apple.com	A listing on a music streaming service	No. Anyone can list their music.	No. Says that the recording is available.	Yes, but only as to the existence of the recording.	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Ghana. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sign of notability of any flavour. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NMUSICIAN 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We've seen this hundreds of times with new African musicians. They pay for placement in unreliable regional publications that simply reprint press releases, then try to use those as proof of media coverage in a WP article. Good luck to him as he gets started but he has to do the work to get noticed by reliable media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting GNG per source assessment and WP:NMUSICIAN. Too many press releases demonstrate the person's media activity, but they do not add to notability. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Ying (producer)

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

Not notable. I can't find any sources that meet WP:42. Fails WP:GNG. Rosentad (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, and China. Skynxnex (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article: Justification for Dai Ying’s Notability

I strongly believe that Dai Ying meets Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) and WP:ENT (Entertainment Industry-Specific Notability) due to her leadership role at iQIYI, her involvement in award-winning productions, and significant media coverage. Below are the key reasons why this article should be retained:

1. Professional Roles

Dai Ying is a Vice President at iQIYI, one of China’s largest video streaming platforms, and serves as the General Manager of the Original Drama Development Center. Her leadership role in overseeing original content development at iQIYI positions her as an influential figure in China’s entertainment industry.[13] Executive-level figures in major entertainment companies frequently meet notability guidelines, given their direct impact on large-scale productions.

Dai Ying, as Vice President of iQIYI, is directly responsible for developing original content and overseeing hit Chinese dramas that gained international recognition (The Bad Kids, The Long Night)[14]. This aligns with figures like Ted Sarandos, Kathleen Kennedy, and Bela Bajaria, who are considered notable for their impact on streaming and original content production.

Another crucial aspect to consider is the underrepresentation of Chinese women executives in the entertainment industry on Wikipedia. While Western executives frequently meet notability guidelines, there are very few articles on Chinese female media executives, despite their significant impact on the entertainment industry.

Wikipedia has a well-documented systemic bias issue, particularly in terms of gender and geographical representation. Studies reported on Wikipedia have shown that women are underrepresented in Wikipedia’s coverage. As mentioned by the co-founder Jimmy Wales, as a newcomer female editor, I'm hoping to be encouraged by writing about notable women in my lifetime even though I work 12 hours in a restaurant. Wikipedia is an inspiration and gives me hope one day I can also work in an office.

Women in Chinese entertainment and business leadership are often overlooked, despite their contributions to global media.

2. Notable Productions with scale

Dai Ying has served as the executive producer for several critically acclaimed Chinese dramas that have gained international recognition.[15] These include:

The Bad Kids – A highly acclaimed suspense drama that became a cultural phenomenon in China, gaining high ratings on Douban (8.9/10) and sparking widespread discussion.
The Long Night – An award-winning drama that received the Best OTT Original Series Award at the Busan International Film Festival. The show was also broadcast on NHK Japan.
"Dr. Tang" – A notable medical drama highlighting China’s advancements in medical technology.
War of Faith - Captured the attention of overseas markets

These productions have been recognized both domestically and internationally, which strengthens Dai Ying’s case for notability. She has produced over 30 dramas. The dramas she produced has received 7 wins and 2 nominations.

Source: IMDb

3. Significant Media Coverage

Dai Ying has been interviewed and featured in various reputable media outlets discussing her role in shaping China’s streaming industry. These interviews and articles provide independent, in-depth coverage of her work, meeting Wikipedia’s WP:GNG requirement for multiple reliable sources.

Source: Launch new projects

Source: Won Producer of the Year

Conclusion

Dai Ying meets Wikipedia’s WP:GNG and WP:ENT guidelines as:

She holds a top executive role at a major streaming company (iQIYI).

She has produced multiple award-winning, widely recognized dramas.

She has received independent media coverage from reputable sources.

Based on these factors, I urge editors to reconsider the deletion nomination. I am most willing to learn and would greatly appreciate sharing on feedback on how to improve the article.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Heureuxl 18:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heureuxl is the creator of this article (posted by Nominator). Rosentad (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Neutral, ~~I agree that [16] [17] likely constitute GNG, unless there is some connection between Sohu and iQIYI that I haven't found which would make them non-independent.~~ (stricken per comment below) As a heads up for the future @Heureuxl, WP:WALLSOFTEXT are much less likely to help your argument than a more succinct and focused argument. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarity and well-understood on this.

Heureuxl 01:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wasianpower: Source [4] actually originates from Qianlong.com (here) and is not an official Sohu release. It's most likely a commercial press release, as it's very promotional and doesn't have the reporter's name on it. Source [5] is actually posted by a Sohu self-media account. It is self-published content. They are clearly not independent of the subject. Rosentad (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, apologies — wasn't familiar with Sohu's formatting. I'll change my vote to neutral to now, there's enough breadth of coverage that it seems plausible to me that this subject could meet notability, but I don't have the experience to properly navigate the sourcing. [18] This source seems like it may meet GNG but it may also be self published, and this source [19] reads a bit promotional in tone (from the generated translation at least) but may also qualify. She also has an entry to on the CN Wikipedia, which could be used to find additional sourcing [20], though this entry is also tagged with concerns about COI and promotional content. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rosentad @Wasianpower

Thank you for your feedback. But just because it's reported by a sohu self media account, how does it say that it's self published content when it's a media report? Please let me know so I can improve my 3rd party sources selection for the future. Also, how can I further improve the article? Thank you both.

Heureuxl 23:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Producers are run of the mill, and do not get an encyclopedia article unless they pass both WP:NCREATIVE and WP:SIGCOV. Almost all producers are just managers of money and other resources. They are not creative people. If they are involved with the creative process, then we have a whole Guideline for that. I don't see how the subject "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited," or has been "known for originating a significant new concept," etc, or theory, or technique. The only argument is the subject had "a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." Turning to significant coverage about them, I find it lacking. Compare Lorne Michaels. Bearian (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Heureuxl, in AFDs, we don't need your arguments about why a subject is notable, we need solid, reliable sources that demonstrate notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Bearian that she definitely doesn't qualify for WP:NCREATIVE — she is a media executive, not a "creative professional". I had a look at Chinese language sources to see if there might be enough to satisfy WP:GNG, but wasn't able to find anything particularly useful. There are plenty of mentions/quotes in articles about new shows, a few interviews, and a few pieces about minor awards she's won, but nothing beyond that. Her articles on Baidu Baike and zhwiki don't have anything that would indicate a GNG pass either. MCE89 (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FAIRR Initiative

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

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

Keep : While the article is basically an ad and perhaps needs a total rewrite, I don't think sources are an issue. See [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. I can't vouch for the quality of all these sources, but these were just the first things I found after hardly any searching. The coverage seems far beyond routine. — Anonymous 04:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these sources were created by the org, and the rest are churnalism in trade publications (WP:TRADES) based on press releases. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Animal, Organizations, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There might be enough coverage to meet WP:NORG. Reuters, FT are the best I could find; there's a lot of less significant coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source eval?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable initiative with pretty decent sourcing, mentioned above and we should keep in mind that there are almost additional sources in printed or other media per WP:NEXIST for such kind of orgs.--ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a general rule to participants in an AFD, PLEASE do not recommend sources unless you have checked them out before listing them in your comments. It's your job to vet the sources before suggesting them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources suggested by User:An anonymous username, not my real name are WP:TRADES publications based on press releases ([28], [29], [30], [31], [32] -- plus, these are not WP:SIGCOV of the organization but rather reporting on one of its reports), a non-independent source authored by the subject org ([33]), and a press release from the subject ([34]). The Reuters source supplied by Helpful Raccoon has two trivial mentions of FAIRR in an article on a broader coalition. Looking through the sources in the article, I see a mix of WP:ORGTRIV, WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, and affiliated sources, but nothing that qualifies at WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. The FT source is the only thing I see that gets close to WP:NORG and that's not enough. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DClemens' analysis strongly shows WP:ORG is not met. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to NAIA football national championship. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of NAIA national football championship series appearances by team

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

Subject lacks the requisite coverage to meet the WP:NLIST. Wikipedia is not a repository of primary sources as is currently the case here and a BEFORE didn't come up with anything better. PROD was removed without a rationale so taking this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I'm not sure this will letter of the law qualify but deleting this also feels like removing part of a set of college football stats articles. I can't make a source based argument for keep, but this isn't a delete which "feels" like it makes the encyclopaedia better. SportingFlyer T·C 04:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the info can be covered in a different article? That being said, wikipedia isn't everything. Let'srun (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problem if a better article or article title is established, I'd just prefer not to lose the information. SportingFlyer T·C 00:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same reaction as Sporting Flyer. The piece is well done and sourced, records a significant piece of college football history, and seems to make the encyclopeida better. And I did find this which discusses the topic of NAIA teams ranked by the number of postseason appearances. Cbl62 (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE for the reasons stated by Cbl62. It would be a shame if the encyclopedia were to lose this information. Jeff in CA (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not think there are any independent sources regarding the set, but individual sourcing on each team's total playoff appearances seems likelier to find. I agree with Cbl62 that a list such as this is encyclopedic. Therefore, I would prefer a different option than deleting. A rename or even merge target may work better. Conyo14 (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are suggestions for ATDs, but can we please come into an agreement?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See previous relisting comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into NAIA football national championship. Wikipedia is ultimately WP:NOTSTATS but I recognize the value of having table as an enhancement to the encyclopedia if its properly sourced. I still agree with OP that it fails WP:NLIST and doesn't deserve its own article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a target I can agree with. Conyo14 (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues with this. Let'srun (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is not "excessive listings of unexplained statistics", which is the topic of WP:NOTSTATS. In fact, this list contains no statistics at all, as simple counts, such as win-loss records, are not statistics. Jeff in CA (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 14:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Affairs Office (Syria)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Syria. — Anonymous 02:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, it seems to be a cabinet-level office and a part of the government. It is already there and it is already something. Not being covered enough doesn't mean that it's not notable enough I believe.

- RamiPat (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Note that comments should be placed at the bottom of deletion discussions.) Unfortunately, that is indeed how notability works. — Anonymous 00:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as an alternative to deletion. BilletsMauves^€500 13:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. "Not being covered enough doesn't mean that it's not notable", coverage by reliable sources is how we assess notability so I disagree. Read WP:N.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:CRYSTAL. Unremarkable and nothing guarantees that it will become. Svartner (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Almost no information. Listing the head of the office can and should be done on the cabinet page. Draftification is a good ATD for this page. Otherwise redirect to the cabinet page. gidonb (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Maybe because this AFD has now been open for 2 weeks, consensus has shifted from Redirect to Keep. I guess it's no longer TOOSOON. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Hall of Fame (2025)

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

WP:TOOSOON, Although, it is announced that Paul "Triple H" Levesque that will inducted on Hall of Fame, it is premature to create this solely article. However, there is a section on WWE Hall of Fame#2025. Much likely supporting to Redirect for a while, then if it's announced completely who's in the hall of fame, it can be created solely. ROY is WAR Talk! 05:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ROY is WAR Talk! 05:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WWE Hall of Fame#2025 for now, until/unless we get more to work with. It's WP:TOOSOON.LM2000 (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WWE Hall of Fame#2025 as per LM2000, the topic simply does not have enough information at this time to warrant a standalone article. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Nevada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a ridiculous nomination. Clear secondary sources exist such as [35] and the event is two months away. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is obviously WP:TOOSOON like you said, it's two months away. According to WP:TOOSOON:Sometimes, a topic may appear obviously notable to you, but there may not be enough independent coverage of it to confirm that. In such cases, it may simply be too soon to create the article. It's Triple H that only have an announcement that inducted on Hall of Fame and if there is will be on hall of fame without a reliable sources might be WP:CRYSTALBALL. ROY is WAR Talk! 12:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read what I wrote? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WWE Hall of Fame#2025 for now. Per WP:TOOSOON. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 14:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:PWEVENT once the date and ___location has been announced for these events its deemed to have met the notability criteria. Therefore WP:TOOSOON does not apply. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The date and ___location for this event have already been announced according to the article. The date is April 18, 2025, and the ___location is T-Mobile Arena in Paradise, Nevada. So, it is keep. Abhiramakella (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lets be real the date and place have not been confirmed yet- it is a bullshit 2A13:9900:F000:0:1F0:6059:E8EA:D3F6 (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2A13:9900:F000:0:1F0:6059:E8EA:D3F6:Please be Civil to your vote. ROY is WAR Talk! 11:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Secondary sources are present, and this is obviously something that will be updated over the coming weeks, so deleting it now only to have it re-created next month seems odd. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not too soon. A second name already announced, sources are cited. We all know it's going to be an article so just leave it alone. Jeremyeyork (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dharampal Singh (party secretary)

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The subject just holds a state-level post of a Notable National Party in India. Taabii (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Taabii (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the person before him holding this post Sunil Bansal also had a Wikipedia page and this is a notable post in the party's state unit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amplify Digital 21 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Holding a party office alone does not confer notability, even if the office itself is notable. WP:NPOL only applies to state offices. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Simply holding the position of secretary or national secretary of a political party does not satisfy the WP:NPOL criteria, and the subject also fails to meet the WP:GNG requirements. Baqi:) (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While WP:NPOL is clearly not met, I'd like to see a deeper source analysis before concluding whether WP:GNG is met or not. Some sources such as the two from The Indian Express ([36] and [37]) appear to provide some level of WP:SIGCOV (that source is considered reliable, see Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide#India). I haven't checked the other sources, but it would be worth to look deeper into them. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. I cannot find subject's work as politician that has made any significant impact and achievement to be worthy of notice and noteworthy. RangersRus (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Subject only holds post within the party and not elected to any state or national legislative assemblies, fails WP:NPOL TheSlumPanda (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at half of the sources, with the main trends being that reliability isn't clear for most Indian news organizations, and, more crucially here, that there is a lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage beyond his appointment as general secretary. Still not knowledgeable enough on Indian news orgs to tell whether or not he meets WP:GNG, but the lack of sustained notability is definitely an issue.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/dharampal-uttar-pradesh-bjp-general-secretary-8083646/		Per WP:NPPSG	✔ Yes
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/dharampal-saini-replaces-sunil-bansal-as-up-bjp-general-secretary/articleshow/93480841.cms	WP:NEWSORGINDIA	~ WP:TIMESOFINDIA	? Unknown
https://www.livehindustan.com/uttar-pradesh/story-who-is-dharampal-singh-who-got-the-responsibility-of-organization-general-minister-of-up-bjp-6922808.html	WP:NEWSORGINDIA		? Unknown
https://indianexpress.com/article/political-pulse/bjp-general-secretary-begins-groundwork-for-party-from-braj-and-west-up-8103868/		WP:NPPSG	✔ Yes
https://hindi.news18.com/news/uttar-pradesh/lucknow-bjp-new-organization-general-secretary-dharampal-singh-called-his-first-meeting-in-ghaziabad-upns-4485823.html	WP:NEWSORGINDIA	Last discussion on the topic wasn't very fruitful	? Unknown
https://zeenews.india.com/hindi/india/who-is-dharampal-singh-assigned-the-responsibility-of-the-general-secretary-of-up-bjp/1297506	WP:NEWSORGINDIA, lack of a byline makes this one more worrying	~ WP:NPPSG	? Unknown
https://www.aajtak.in/india/uttar-pradesh/story/dharampal-singh-handle-responsibility-organization-general-minister-bjp-up-ntc-1516426-2022-08-11			? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Commenters above pointed out that he didn't meet WP:NPOL, which is true, but NPOL is an alternative to GNG, not a requirement that also has to be met. In that case, notability (if it exists) would come from GNG, not NPOL, but isn't sustained either way, so I'm still not sold on keeping the article (although I'm not strongly swayed towards deletion either yet). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avon School District (Massachusetts)

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

Likely fails WP:GNG. Merge and redirect this content to Avon, Massachusetts#Education. –Aidan721 (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, United States of America, and Massachusetts. –Aidan721 (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A school district is a type of municipality, and its boundaries are not necessarily the same as a town of the same name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, they are the same. And how does that address the notability argument? –Aidan721 (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan721: The idea is that a municipality is a government-recognized place, and so it is not necessary to do the work to prove it as notable. However in Massachusetts, school districts do have the same boundaries as municipalities. Also, the US Census Bureau considers most Massachusetts school districts as being dependencies of municipal governments. Therefore, if this school district is deemed not notable, it can be merged into Avon, Massachusetts. Anyhow, I will look for information on this district. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per School Committee Policy Manual from the offical website: The area served by the Avon Public Schools is conterminous with the Town of Avon (p. 6). –Aidan721 (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. New England school districts have school district boundaries be the same as municipal boundaries. In the case of regional school districts, boundaries are the same as the two or more municipalities included. The concept of school districts crossing municipal and county boundaries reflect school districts in most states, but not in MA. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address the notability argument: "likely" to fail the GNG? Didn't you check? Ravenswing 05:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found an angle in which keep can be an outcome: I found an article in which a superintendent took a tour of China and as a result, began to consider expanding academic courses on China. And I found another article on how the school district no longer could have Latin.
Kazarian, Christopher (2006-07-13). "Ex-Southampton resident to tour China on Fulbright". The Summit. Easthampton, Massachusetts. pp. 1, 3 – via Newspapers.com.

Melanson, Mike (2008-08-26). "Lack of teacher means no Latin for Avon students". Wicked Local. Retrieved 2025-02-08.
I found other articles on changes of superintendents, but I think these two articles have the best SIGCOV on this district.
WhisperToMe (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, additional SIGCOV is in the article about how the district had to use churches during a repair of the school: Coleman, Sandy (2004-10-03). "Public schooling, church setting". Boston Globe. pp. Globe South 1, 5 – via Newspapers.com. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Wienerschnitzel. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Delicious One

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

A user DePRODed this article stating to "not delete this because it can still have good sources and to give it a chance", however, I am not seeing this having good sources, it has failed WP:GNG for 15 years. This source might be good, ^[1], but it is still not enough to separate an article for the mascot. Opolito was right to PROD it, and he is also right that reliable sourcing will never happen. Toby2023 (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not kept, I would recommend merging the info to Wienerschnitzel as its own section. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "'The Delicious One' speaks in new TV spots for Wienerschnitzel". Nation's Restaurant News. October 2, 2000. Archived from the original on February 13, 2011.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Food and drink, Advertising, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero notability, poorly written piece of WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wienerschnitzel - The mascot is already mentioned on the main article, so Redirecting would be a valid WP:ATD. Since the only sourced content here is merely confirming that the character is an advertising mascot of Wienerschnitzel, which is already stated on the main article, I don't really see the need for a Merge. Rorshacma (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Wienerschnitzel – All the mascot description fits perfectly into the main article. Svartner (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per others. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per Piotrus. Doesn't have enough sources. There might be a decent redirect target, but it does seem vague. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Darkness Gathering

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

Single, unnotable game accessory, only reviewed in 2 magazines, which are passing mentions. -Samoht27 (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Games. -Samoht27 (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added summaries of the two listed reviews to the article, and used details from the reviews to expand the description of the subject. The two reviews are not "passing mentions"; each is several hundred words long. Notability is not in question.Guinness323 (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to the improvments we now have a referenced non-stubby article, which demonstrates that the reviews were not passing mentions, and therefore the topic fullfilling WP:WHYN/WP:GNG. A closer look at sources during the WP:BEFORE search seems warranted. Daranios (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guinness323 and Daranios. BOZ (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Bergamo (entrepreneur)

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

Non-notable entrepreneur. Lacks direct and in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Italy and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 01:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Possible promotional article. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bellevue Kandy

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

per WP:NACTOR, no sources provide coverage about the actress. The article is also littered with fake references FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have edited the article a bit. She at least meets WP:GNG, and probably WP:NCREATIVE, though I have not checked for reviews of all the films she has produced (there is a list in an earlier version of this article, but the current article only names two she received award nominations for in 2022). The sources do provide coverage of her, as suggested by their titles: "Zoom sur la meilleure scénariste de la RDC : Belinda Kikusa Kandi dit « Bellevue », la Femme sage"; "Belinda Kandy dit « Belle Vue », apporte une nouvelle touche dans le cinéma congolais"; "Bellevue KANDY | 50 Femmes qui inspirent"; ). "L'actrice comédienne Belinda Bellevie Officiel est à deux doigts d'instaurer un nouveau record historique dans le cinéma congolais". (Note both her professional and real names used with variations in spelling.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 00:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I don't read French, but the translations of the articles look like they establish notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Strong arguments from both sides, with what I see as marginally weightier evidence presented by the Keep side, but not enough to tip the scales into consensus territory, and I see this as unlikely to change with a relist. The exchange here suggests that there may be value in discussing a possible overlap between this article and Transnationalism, Globalism, Globalization, Internationalization, Cosmopolitanism and the DAB Internationalism, with a view for potential mergers, but that is outside the scope of this AfD. Please refrain from renominating for six months. Owen× ☎ 14:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Internationality

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

WP:DICDEF and WP:SYNTH. It's a blend of various topics that can be found separately at the DAB page International. — Anonymous 00:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Geography. — Anonymous 00:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with the nom. There is nothing here that passes our concept of an article subject. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Of course the concept of things being international exists, and a disambiguation page is no solution where it obscures, rather than elucidating, the fact that topics on the page express aspects of a single underlying topic. If the article requires further substance to pass muster, add that substance. Sources certainly exist. BD2412 T 03:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But this is an encyclopedia. "The concept of things being international", as you put it, is not an encyclopedic topic, not any more than "the concept of things being the color beige" is. Without context, this is just a word. I have no doubt that thousands of sources use it, but words are not inherently notable in and of themselves. — Anonymous 03:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of Internationality is precisely as encyclopedic as the concept of Beige. In fact, some of the most important topics that we have (and I would count this among them) are high-level conceptual abstractions of fundamental aspects of human life. BD2412 T 03:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you envision this article as being about? Perhaps a colour was a poor example on my part (as it's something distinct and tangible). How about the concept of things existing on Earth? Similarly abstract and far too broad. For this case, we're looking at the internationality of what exactly? Can you provide a reliable source discussing internationality without further context (not in relation to laws, regulations, relations, agreements, or ideologies)? Any source will do (except a dictionary, of course). — Anonymous 04:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no requirement that sources discuss concepts "without further context". That would be like asking to have the article on Construction include sources on construction with no context about things being constructed. BD2412 T 04:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Construction is a process. I can point at something and say whether or not it is construction. Internationality is much more abstract. I think it's fair to say that abstract concepts require some kind of cohesive, concrete grounding. For instance Knowledge and Awareness are both pretty abstract, but they both represent consistent ideas that remain the same whether they're being discussed from a scientific, philosophical, or religious perspective. Internationality, on the other hand, can mean completely different things depending on the context. An international language is not comparable to an international treaty. They are two completely different things that happen to both be "international". — Anonymous 04:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I think of it, the construction analogy itself could be broken down further. As a word, construction can also be used to refer to the way a text is interpreted or a type of geometric figure. Despite the existence of these other meanings (which it acknowledges itself), our article on the subject makes it clear that we're talking about human beings taking materials and building stuff with them. Defining other meanings is why DAB pages exist. It would be pointless to try to discuss them all in a single article. — Anonymous 05:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I raised Construction as an example of a thing that is inherently tied to contexts, not as an abstraction of the level of Internationality. BD2412 T 05:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the concept of things existing on Earth covered by our article on ontology? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a philosophical concept that is more to the tune of things existing in the universe. My very hypothetical example was based on the idea of having an article about things existing specifically on planet Earth with no further connection to each other. Sure, there are plenty of articles about these things. Perhaps you could make an article with a nice-sounding name like "Terran". However, it would still not be hopelessly broad and not describe a meaningful group. For a slightly more specific example, consider our DAB page for American. The first entry is something of, from, or related to the United States of America, commonly known as the "United States" or "America" So far, no one has created an article for this uselessly wide meaning, and information about more specific meanings can be found on the page. — Anonymous 04:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We also have an article on Globalization, which is basically just internationality taken to its ultimate end. Of course, Internationalization and Cosmopolitanism cover narrower iterations. BD2412 T 05:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really, though? Globalization is a process. As it is used by modern experts, it has a single, consistent meaning (it's arguably much less broad than the other examples I gave). — Anonymous 05:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, try this on for size: Jonathan Rée, Internationality, Radical Philosophy 60, Spring 1992. BD2412 T 05:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Intriguing. It seems the author defines it as a tangible concept here akin to globalization. If there are additional sources supporting this usage, then I'd support keeping the article, but that would mean getting rid of the content on international languages and sporting events. — Anonymous 05:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you would remove topics for which the concept is clearly applicable. Internationality in sports is functionally an extension of internationality in culture and, to some extent, in government. BD2412 T 17:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See the IP's response. This is one philosopher's idea of a new concept of "internationality", which has nothing to do with other things that happen to be "international". — Anonymous 17:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The IP has misread the work, then. Rée does not claim to be the coiner of "Internationality" and in fact specifically acknowledges its prior coinage. He says that the word was coined but has "lain unused" (as of his writing 33 years ago), and that he seeks "to rehabilitate the word". This is, therefore, not "one specific philosopher's new idea", but an older idea teased out in a philosophical writing. BD2412 T 18:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is where our impasse is coming from. Yes, it was a word before Rée. Yes, many people have used it as a word. However, not all words represent encyclopedic concepts. Rée is using an existing word to describe his new concept. Do these sources before Rée describe the same idea he is describing? And if so, how is this philosophical concept related to sporting events? — Anonymous 18:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find Rée's use to be a "new concept" at all. He describes Internationality as the global context of state formation, legal systems, and military structures. Sure, he has his own theory about the order in which these things happen, but the concept itself is like the concept of the ocean with respect to naval battles, with a different theory of how battles on the ocean occur not actually redefining what the ocean is. BD2412 T 22:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all the philosophical bickering in this AfD, we are missing the one thing this subject needs to pass WP:GNG: Are there reliable secondary sources discussing general "internationality" as a concept (as opposed to a specialized definition unique to politics, trade, or whatever)? If so, they aren't cited in the article, which is an unsourced definition followed by a list of examples from different contexts. This is as SYNTH as it gets. If the word can be shown to be commonly used in certain fields then I guess a redirect to the DAB would be acceptable. But not this article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This was listed at the ARS rescue list without leaving a notice here, in a somewhat (but not overly) non-neutral way. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm forced to agree with the other delete votes. I just don't think there's a topic here. Some things have international applications, like sport or law, and we have articles about those, but there's nothing about "internationality" specifically except as a DICDEF. There just don't seem to be any sources here. The one actual presented source by Ree above, seems to be about one specific philosopher's new idea of something which he's calling "internationality". This a) doesn't seem to be notable on its own, and b) even if it were, if you wanted to write an article about this philosopher's idea, you'd start from scratch, because it's a different topic to that of the current state of the WP article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: My deepest thanks to everyone who has participated in this exhausting discussion; if anyone's interested, Transnationality should probably be brought here for extremely similar reasons, but I don't think I have the energy left to do so myself. — Anonymous 05:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — the cited rationale is incorrect. Speaking as an originator of the article in 2006, when it was merely International as a primary topic. Since then, International was moved back to a disambiguation. This is well sourced, and far more than a dictionary definition. This does NOT "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." NB: polled by the nominator. Presumably s/he/it polled every contributor. That's a lot of effort for no good reason.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@William Allen Simpson, I'm having a hard time understanding you. To be clear, you were the creator of this article, which your vote should make clear. The number of sources doesn't change the fact that it's a dictionary definition because the sources are describing different things that just happen to be "international". Also, what do you mean by "polled every contributor"? — Anonymous 18:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Things being "international" is notable. We don't have articles at adjective titles (Happy points to Happiness for example), and this fits with having Transnationalism and Globalism, since Internationalism is already occupied. I also find it defined in several book sources so the article can be improved, but doesn't need deleted. CNMall41 (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 but happiness, transnationalism, and globalism are concepts that have been discussed by academics. "Internationality" is a word that can refer to completely different things, making this a DICDEF. — Anonymous 20:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found it discussed in books such as this so I would need to disagree. It is covered in more specific uses, but the overall idea is still discussed enough for this to meet notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41, both this source and another source brought up earlier appear to be describing specific philosophical concepts (not necessarily the same ones), which may or may not be notable. Even if they can be proven notable, that would still mean essentially rewriting most or all of the existing article from scratch as it is currently just synthesizing different things that happen to be international. I think the most fitting comparison, given that we're dealing with internationality, would be a specific nationality. A person, language, or cuisine can be German, but we don't have one article that simultaneously discusses all German things. Now, if German represented a valid philosophical concept, we might have an article on it if enough experts discussed the idea, but it would be a completely different article than the aforementioned one that simply discussed all things German. — Anonymous 21:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting is always acceptable per WP:HEY but I don't think it needs deleted just to clean it up. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be deleted, but it does need to be pared and aligned with the concept of "internationality" - anything that's just "international" can be removed, but the Jonathan Reé parts shouldn't. In academia, a lot of the research is coming up with ways to measure how "international" different things are, over a variety of means - this should be the focus of the article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I frankly don't think anything needs to be removed, just contextualized. The components that have been called out — internationality of words and languages, and of sports — are still elements of the culture of internationality, of which political and economic relationships are dominant, but not exhaustive. BD2412 T 20:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Perhaps - the bit about sports is unsourced though and might not fit well, and there's definitely a distinct concept which isn't really talked about in the article. It feels like it talks about international too much and not internationality... SportingFlyer T·C 21:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I am not saying that it does need rewritten. What I am saying is that "IF" it needs rewritten, that is not a reason for deletion. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the first two sources that instantly popped up in a BEFORE search were a detailed definition of the concept and a literature review of how the concept is used in academia. The delete !votes are honestly baffling - the article is in no way a dictionary definition and clearly passes GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 19:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Care to share these sources with the rest of the class? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 1991 Jonathan Reé article and Buela-Casal et al. 2006. SportingFlyer T·C 06:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As explained by both me and others above, the Ree source is N/A to the topic, because it's about a novel idea of one specific philosopher (which is itself not notable on its own), which would require its own article contrary to the topic (vague as it is) of the current article under discussion. Your other source is mentioned neither here nor at the article currently, so it's unclear what you're even referring to. If there's some idea of "internationality", so fundamental as has been claimed, and worthy of an article, then it should be plainly supportable with (easily) dozens of sources. Two isn't enough, especially due to the objections I just pointed out. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage you to read the Reé article more carefully, then. He specifically acknowledges that "Internationality" precedes his writing, and that he is "rehabilitating" the concept, not "reinventing" it, which is an accurate reading of his piece as a whole. Reé notes what Internationality is, and then proceeds to offer a new take on its specific role in the formation of nations, and consequently in national relations. Also new added to the article is a complementary discussion of Internationality by Martin Shaw, who understands it as being the same thing Reé outlines, but has a different take on its role in national relations. I am working on adding the Buela-Casal article now as well. There are, of course, tens of thousands of sources discussion internationality in some content, so the difficulty is not in finding sources at all, but in refining better sources out of the massive number of hits. BD2412 T 17:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The other point I was trying to make isn't "there are two sources" but "there are dozens of sources and here are the first two which immediately popped up." I've been involved in discussions where an academic invents a term, creates a wiki article on it, but it goes nowhere - this is not the case with Reé. SportingFlyer T·C 18:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one is claiming that's the case here, yet his article is about a novel concept to which he's applying a pre-existing word. There is nothing to say about the topic of "internationality" in an encyclopedic way, and no one has yet demonstrated the contrary, nor come up with any plausible sources. No one has even been able to explain what the topic of the article really is, or should be, to any satisfactory degree. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's just demonstrably false that there's nothing to say about the topic, though - there's plenty of journal coverage which focuses specifically on the word, like Hamann and Zimmer 2017, SportingFlyer T·C 22:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, they actually define it in the first sentence: The paper investigates internationality as an academic virtue (emphasis added). So now we have yet another definition: an "academic virtue". I'm still curious how we can relate this new definition to world languages and sporting events (barring blatant SYNTH, of course). — Anonymous 00:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't - the definition comes in the second paragraph: Generally speaking, when academics speak of ‘internationality’, they mostly refer to occupying international posts in academic institutions, an international recognition or impact, or international mobility and a cosmopolitan mindset. The "virtue" part explains why it has become important. SportingFlyer T·C 01:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, you claim I've misidentified their definition. The definition you've just provided seems the same, only more elaborated upon. It's an academic concept, then. Still not a linguistic concept, or a sporting concept, or a philosophical view of international relations. Once again, are there any sources connecting the varying uses of this term? None of the sources that have been provided can be connected by anything beyond their usage of a single word. Until someone bridges this gap, the discussion will go nowhere. — Anonymous 02:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All we're arguing about is notability, not the concept itself. There are clearly sources showing this is an academic concept and philosophical concept, which may need to be covered separately. That gets us to GNG - there's no need for anything to link them together. The fact the article still needs to be cleaned up isn't really in dispute either, but the notability is clear. SportingFlyer T·C 03:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"... he is "rehabilitating" the concept, not "reinventing" it ..." That's a mighty fine hair you're splitting, and I don't think it's even a meaningful one. Nor does it even remotely try to address what "internationality" even is, or why Ree's "rehabilitation" of the word is of sufficient importance to even mention anywhere, let alone as the basis for an article. Ree's idea isn't notable. And there is no notable topic for which Ree's work can be used to provide information about. This isn't complicated -- there is no topic here, nor has anyone provided even a whit of how there could be one, despite all the boisterous protestation to the contrary. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reé literally says, "By way of a conclusion, I propose to rehabilitate the word, in order to indicate the basis upon which I think the theory of nationhood ought now to develop. I shall use it to express a concept which, although it is implicit in much recent work on nationhood, perhaps deserves to be spelt out and discussed more clearly". Reé's concept is "of sufficient importance to even mention" because it was written by an author well-published in his field, and was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, i.e., a reliable source. If you think it should not have been published, you can contact the editors of Radical Philosophy and see if you can get them to retract it. Otherwise, it abundantly meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion as a source, and the idea therefore meets the test of noteworthiness for mention in a relevant article. However, you can put Reé out of your mind entirely, and there are still multiple sources supporting the notability of the concept of relationships of things beyond the bounds of one nation. BD2412 T 03:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"... and there are still multiple sources supporting the notability of the concept of relationships of things beyond the bounds of one nation. " No, there aren't. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment. Okay, I'm tapping the hell out of this one. This has gotten utterly ridiculous. Let me sum this up in very clear terms. There is no encyclopedic topic here. When you filter out all the chaff, all that's left is the mind-numbingly banal idea that "Some things/institutions/etc. exist at an international level". That's it, full stop. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. This is not the topic of an encyclopedia article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I can refute this in two words: read Shaw. BD2412 T 04:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded on Shaw and Saenger, who examines Shakespeare's use of internationality, in the article. BD2412 T 00:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "'The Delicious One' speaks in new TV spots for Wienerschnitzel". Nation's Restaurant News. October 2, 2000. Archived from the original on February 13, 2011.

[1]