Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 22	March 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Bruce Nissen

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

Basically a resumé, devoid of independent coverage and therefore failing NPROF. Jay Cubby 23:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Jay Cubby 23:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
courtesy ping @Ldm1954 and @Bearian. Jay Cubby 23:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominators explanation is inconsistent with WP:NPROF; the issue for NPROF is whether the subject qualifies under any of the criteria WP:NPROF#C1 to WP:NPROF#C8, not independent coverage. While the page is poorly sourced, it does not appear that a full WP:BEFORE was performed; for certain the lack of sources can be largely fixed by normal editing, so per policy, that is not grounds for deletion. (In a quick check I found some sources which I added, and there are also some reviews of his books and at least one interview of him that I have not added.) His citations with an h-factor of 20 are not great, but looking at his areas in GS they are low citation topics. More to the point, he has a national award which supports #C3, and he was either the editor or co-editor of a journal from 2000-2008. While not the strongest of notability cases, it is not the clear-cut delete that the nomination implies. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Florida, Indiana, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. My first concern is WP:BLP. I don't see any reliable sources at all on several different searches; I assume that they must exist somewhere because you claimed that they exist. As for WP:NPROF#C1 and WP:NPROF#C2, for awards, "Biographical listings in and awards from vanity press publishers, such as the American Biographical Institute, or from publications incorporating a substantial vanity press element in their business model, such as Marquis Who's Who, do not qualify for satisfying Criterion 2 or for partially satisfying Criterion 1." You can't just take his word for it; but a citation to the organization's website is probably sufficient. As I told you, find a source, any source, and put it in as an inline source. As for WP:NPROF#C8, "8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area" (emphasis added) which I was eventually able to confirm after many clicks and scrolls, that he was, with Paul Jarley, Co-editor of the Labor Studies Journal. I can't say a full keep because of that. Thank you for pushing me, but why didn't you just show us your evidence? Bearian (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dondero High School A Capella Choir Pop Concert

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

I rejected this at draftspace but it was moved to mainspace and renamed. This fails WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary coverage. The book was written by someone who went to the high school and isn't secondary, and the reporting is local coverage, mostly of the book which was written. It's also not written from a neutral point of view, which is a clean up issue if this is kept. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Michigan. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The book is usable for historical information, and we don't need it to establish notability because the Detroit News and Oakland Press articles are enough to establish notability. The articles are relevant. The Detroit News is one of the most important newspapers in the United States. The Oakland Free Press is the most important newspaper in Oakland County. Articles relevant to Metro Detroit help achieve notability. The area has a greater population than some countries. The Metro Detroit area has millions of people. If you asked 100 people what their subjective opinion on what a neutral point of view is, they would give 100 different answers. As far as I am aware, the statements in the article are backed by reliable sources. I believe that is as objective as you can get. Orlando Davis (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Wikipedia rules require significant coverage of reliable and independent sources so that a fair and balanced article can be written. All of the articles used in the Pop Concert article are from reliable sources, including the Detroit News article and two separate Oakland Press articles, and those articles have the pop concert as the main subject and not just a passing mention, making the coverage in the Detroit News and Oakland Press articles significant. The Detroit News and Oakland Press articles are also independent sources as they were written by writers who were not affiliated with the pop concert. Wikipedia requires at least one secondary source for an article to qualify, and this article has several secondary sources, including the Detroit News article and the 2 Oakland Press articles. Wikipedia requires multiple sources for an article to qualify (The definition of multiple is more than one). The Detroit News article and the 2 separate Oakland Press articles satisfy the multiple articles Wikipedia guideline. See Wikipedia's notability guidelines posted here in the section "why we have these requirements": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability. The Pop Concert article also establishes notability by explaining that the Pop Concert was innovative and groundbreaking for its time in the field of high school choir performance. Also, I had the right to move up the Pop Concert article once it was no longer in the articles of creation space since I am an autoconfirmed user. Orlando Davis (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally: "Local sources are considered to be reliable sources if they meet Wikipedia's guidelines for being reliable sources. They are valid in establishing notability if they provide in-depth, non-routine, non-trivial coverage of the subject." See this Wikipedia article: Wikipedia:Notability (local interests)#:~:text=Articles on local interests are,going, non-trivial coverage. As I stated before, the Detroit News and Oakland Press articles provide in-depth coverage, and not just a passing mention of the Dondero Pop Concert. Also, the article Mr Hartoe's Opus was written 9 years before the other articles and compares Mr. Hartsoe's story to the movie Mr. Holland's Opus while discussing the history of the Dondero Pop Concert. The other two articles mention the book but focus primarily on the history of the Dondero Pop concert. Orlando Davis (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Romantic Revival

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

This page appears to be a mixture of unsourced information, original research, and potentially self-promotion.

The primary source for the page, and for the majority of its life the only source, is a Time Magazine article entitled Festivals: Romantic Revival. The article was published in 1969 and is merely a review of a particular event held that year which featured Romantic music (and which was not even called "Romantic Revival"). The Time article contains no claims about broader historical trends of Romantic music experiencing a revival in the cultural consciousness starting in the 1960s, as the Wikipedia page does. In fact, far from suggesting that this 1969 festival is the beginning of a coming cultural shift, the author is openly derisive of the Romantic music played at the festival.

The text about Ates Orga's championing of the revival, added to the article several years after its initial creation, is supported only by an accompanying reference to a 1977 article written by Orga, and not by any independent source positing the notability of Orga's activities.

The text about the Romantic Revival Orchestra, added to the article quite recently, appears to be entirely self-promotion. No source is provided other than a link to the website of the entity described.

Note that the page has existed on Wikipedia for almost 20 years and as such may have influenced sources written after 2007, if not in any particulars of fact, then at least in the claim of the existence, naming, and notability of a "Romantic Revival" in classical music in the 1960s.

(The above rationale was adapted from an AfD request I filed last year that wasn't taken up.) — flamingspinach | (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and History. — flamingspinach | (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it doesn't look like the sourcing is at all there to support the idea that this was a musical movement. Since the article says Harold C. Schonberg was a champion of it in the New York Times I searched the full archive for that paper and as near as I can tell he never used the phrase, and the paper itself only used the phrase talking about other eras, or just casually saying that there's been a revival in interest in this kind of music lately, without saying anything about it being a specific movement. This article appears to be advancing an original argument the sources don't make. --Here2rewrite (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are academic sources that discuss the existence of a Romantic Revival though this article doesn't include them.[1][2][3] This might be a case of WP:TNT. desmay (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of information about a "romantic revival" in literature in the 19th century, which is what your source #2 is about, and probably what source #1 is about as well though I don't have access to it. But that doesn't support this article, which is about a revival of romantic music in the mid 20th century.

The third article you linked is not an academic source - it's an editorial column from a paleoconservative monthly magazine with "close ties to the neo-Confederate movement", according to its Wikipedia article. It was also written a full 10 years after Romantic Revival was first published on Wikipedia, for whatever that's worth. — flamingspinach | (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources have been provided to warrant an article, even of the current quality of the article is low. Cortador (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you list some of those sources? I've mentioned why I think the ones currently included in the article don't support the statements made in the article or are otherwise unsuitable. If you're referring to the comment above yours, I've addressed those as well in a reply. — flamingspinach | (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This subject did exist - there was an infamous prototype of an infomercial that sold Romantic music for the masses. My parents were of the Silent generation who listened to folk music and this genre. It's enough of an essay that I can't !vote to approve it. Please ping me when you add the found sources and cut out the OR. Bearian (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there sources about the topic in this article? Whether they exist for a different subject does not help for notability here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Batman (Thomas Wayne)

AfDs for this article:

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

No sources I can find that indicate individual notability. Though Thomas Wayne is notable, as is Batman, this incarnation of the character has no notability that would inherently justify a separate split-out from either parent. There is no WP:SIGCOV I can find, and the only coverage for this character is trivial WP:ROUTINE coverage regarding announcements or discussions of character returns. This character doesn't seem independently notable of either parent topic. Given the WP:ALLPLOT article with little room for expansion, I'd support a redirect to Thomas Wayne as an WP:ATD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thomas Wayne. A noteworthy instance of the character, but not a separately notable one. BD2412 T 23:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence C. Marsh

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

Fails WP:GNG & Wp:nprof Sabirkir (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Economics. Sabirkir (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two items with pretty good citation levels is below what I'm generally looking for in WP:NPROF. University-wide teaching awards do not contribute here. On the other hand, one book tends to fall under WP:BLP1E so far as WP:NAUTHOR goes; I did not anyway find reviews on a cursory search. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Indiana, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. For someone at this level of seniority, two well-cited publications (one a textbook) with the rest falling off steeply is below the bar for WP:PROF#C1, and nothing else in the article looks to contribute to notability. I did find one published review of the book, and hints that there might have been another by Garman in [4] (from which any book reviews are now missing), but even if I could find the second review it wouldn't be enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To my mind a notable econometrician. His founding of/chairing of the Midwest Econometrics Group (MEG) is I think very notable within the US academic econometrics community and his role as the guest editor for a special edition of a highly prestigious econometrics journal - the Journal of Econometrics is important, as his work on Splines in ecmetrics via his book and papers ... and these seem to me together sufficient for notability. His published academic work in econometrics is very wide ranging....and I have used some if it in different contexts.... His later post-retirement books and media / opinion piece work seem to me less notable (but my bias is towards the academic side) and I don't know how notable his work as an independent Midwest Voices columnist on the Kansas City Star online edition might be from a journalistic point of view. (Msrasnw (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Keep The article has been expanded since its creation. The contributions made by Msrasnw, consisting of valuable content including his publications, serve to further establish the notability of the subject. Gedaali (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While he has (as mentioned above) a couple of well cited papers, the dropoff is fast and the total number of citations at 1359 is weak. His own page does not indicate anything notable except some prior students; notability is not inheritable from his prior students. I don't see indications that his book(s) have had an impact. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hany Rashwan

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

Fails WP:GNG. None of the cited articles are directly about him. Gheus (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've dug up a Forbes staff article and an Ars Technica article about him with significant coverage. Both reliable per WP:RSP. Hmr (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taxi Maxim

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

No indication of importance No source was found either within the article or outside the article that meet notability. According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV), a subject must receive significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to merit an article. All sources used herein are not secondary and do not comply with Wikipedia rules WP:ORGTRIV WP:SECONDARY. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, product placement, press releases, branding campaigns, advertisements, and paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. Information that a company has started operating in a particular country is still not proof of notability, since it is not a measure of the attention the company has received as well (WP:SPIP). By not deleting this article, Wikipedia risks breaching its own policies designed to maintain the quality and reliability of its content. Therefore, I recommend that the article be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Segovia Ar (talk • contribs) 06:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Transportation, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A ride hailing service that operates in 1000 cities in 18 countries has a strong claim of notability. The nominator is a Single-purpose account entirely focused on Taxi Maxim. They began by adding content to the article and now they have decided to try to delete the article. Certainly, the article can be improved but deletion is not the correct outcome. I am confident that a Russian speaking editor familiar with Russia's business media could improve the article. Cullen328 (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Segovia Ar - can you explain what is going on here? It's quite confusing. You created and are the primary editor of this article. It is also the only (minus 1) article you have edited. Your note on the article talk page says that it needs to be removed because "it is wrong". Lamona (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Ode-to-Napoleon" hexachord

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

The article is poorly written and the citations do not verify the existence of an "'Ode to Napoleon' hexachord". Trumpetrep (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Friedmann 1990 book, the very first source cross-referenced by the article body, I find on page 113:
This hexachord, called by some the "magic" hexachord, is used in Schoenberg's Ode to Napoleon Bonaparte.
Similarly, the Straus 2005 book does call (014589) "the hexatonic collection" on page 97 and then proceed to have a section about the hexatonic collection on page 149. Then some quick searching to find something not cited by the article turns up Richard Cohn's Audacious Euphony which says in a footnote to "a hexatonic scale, alternating semitone and minor third" on page 20:
Jazz players know the same pattern as the augmented scale, […] It has also been referred to variously as the Ode to Napoleon collection, Miracle hexachord, Liszt model, source-set E, 1:3 collection, and set class 6–20.
All these certainly seem like a lot of verification of the existence of this. Uncle G (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The statement by the proposer that "the citations do not verify the existence of an 'Ode to Napoleon' hexachord" is false and it is peculiar that the proposer has made this statement, given the fact that they do. Aneirinn (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Uncle G pointed out that citations in the article, and some others, contradict the nominator's claim. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Royce Cronin

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

Completely unreferenced article about an actor. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party media coverage about them and their performances -- but this cites no references at all, and is written in a semi-advertorialized tone that's not complying with WP:NPOV.
As he's a British actor whose strongest claims to potentially passing NACTOR are television roles from 20 years ago, I'm willing to withdraw this if a British editor with better access to archived UK media coverage from the noughts can find enough GNG-worthy sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any referencing. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, England, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG, NACTOR and SIGCOV. Also contains WP:SELFPROMO, as at least one, probably both, of the IP edits is/are by the subject himself. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete found nothing in my search that'd contribute towards GNG. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete have yet to find independent RS referencing the subject in detail asides from brief mentions of his roles from what I have found so far.Villkomoses (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in 24Seven, Family Affairs and more recently on stage in The Band Back Together, a stage play by Barney Norris which does not yet have a WP article, but has reviews from The Guardian, The Times and The Spectator, which I have added to this article, and is thus clearly notable. He has also had other stage roles, including in a well-reviewed production of Bouncers by John Godber (which also should have a WP article). RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NACTOR - Had two regular roles on main channels in the UK. I have expanded the article slightly. Thank you for explaining RebeccaGreen - I was able to find sources for the works you talked about using the newspaper archive. Perhaps this just needs extra research, a lot of his career was in the 1990s and early 2000s and the link rot obviously means we lost sources for his early roles. I have sourced some early role info using archives.Rain the 1 21:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would request that this stays open longer since the original rationale and subsequent support for deletion is based on an unsourced version of this article [5] - I have sourced more of the actor's early life and career beginnings since my previous comment. Also pinging @Alexeyevitch:@DerbyCountyinNZ:@Villkomoses:@Traumnovelle:@Bearcat: - should I continue trying to expand it?Rain the 1 22:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by RebeccaGreen and the improvement (WP:HEY) done by RainTheOne. The subject is clearly notable and meets NACTOR. There are also multiple newspaper sources discussing the actor that I can email. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shemford Futuristic School, Muzaffarpur

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

No evidence of any notability. All refs are either affiliated or trivial. Searches find nothing more reliable. PROD removed from article by author without significant improvement. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD"d, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vincenzo da Via Anfossi

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

The page doesn't appear to be encyclopedic. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In what respect? Give people something to hang their hats on. Uncle G (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there are some sources online: Discogs, AllMusic, Viberate, Google News, etc. Instagram is not a reliable source, but he has 47,400 followers. I'm not sure that it's significant coverage, but I'm equally unsure that a decent search was done before nominating it. Bearian (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keneth Hall (surgeon)

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

A surgeon, offering the usual range of surgical appropaches, and with the usual side-hussles. Scopus shows an H-index of 5, entirely consisting of mid-author publication, suggesting that he is not a lead contributor in any research. Prizes are sufficiently noteworthy; listing in Marquis Who's Who Biographical Registry also doesn't seem sufficient. Klbrain (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and Jamaica. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of vacuum cleaners

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

This is almost completely unsourced and is little more than an incomplete collection of miscellaneous brands and products. I believe it fails WP:NLIST. MidnightMayhem 22:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom - Category:Vacuum cleaners is used for the ones which has a page. Asteramellus (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE, essentially it's a list of individual products. I would be also open to the article being renamed to List of vacuum cleaner manufacturers and summarily reduced to just them. Ajf773 (talk) 09:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Espatie (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ohr Avner Chabad Day School

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

Non-notable religious school. Does not meet WP:GNG. Variety312 (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Israel, and Russia. Variety312 (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Judaism. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because this article refers to a WP:N entire network of schools all over the former Soviet Union (e.g. Russia, Ukraine, Georgia etc) that are easily supported by WP:RS [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] that are sponsored by the Ohr Avner Foundation founded and run by billionaire Lev Leviev. IZAK (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable network of day schools. The campuses should be collapsed into it. Without such merges, context is missing. gidonb (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Epcot Resort Area

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

Delete or merge with larger article on EPCOT. A WP:Before does not produce any WP:RS on this location specifically. Variety312 (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disney and Florida. Variety312 (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Walt Disney World. This is just a listing of hotels in a specific area of Walt Disney World, which is already covered in that article. In my opinion, it is more relevant to WDW than to any one of the constituent theme parks, so I do not recommend merging to Epcot. (For what it's worth, my WP:BEFORE search did uncover some sources, like this and this. I just don't think that we need an article on a group of resorts when each of the resorts has its own article as well, and when the resorts are also listed in the WDW article).
Also, the following should be considered for merging to Walt Disney World#Resorts:

– Epicgenius (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Austria Billie Jean King Cup team

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

Article appears to undergo regular edits with no WP:RS, Suggest merging content with Billie Jean King Cup which already contains details about the competitors. Variety312 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Tennis, and Austria. Variety312 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Watercolors (Sirius XM)

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

This and other channels within SIRIUS XM should be merged with the larger article on the station. Editors should note that with few exceptions WP:RS do not exist for individual channels within Sirius XM. Variety312 (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Entertainment. Variety312 (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Jazz/Standards/Classical: this has been the standard alternative to deletion for non-notable Sirius XM channels in the past, and there's nothing to indicate otherwise here. (The list contains all that needs to be said about the channel; there's nothing to merge, which is just as well as it has been tagged as completely unsourced since 2022.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibitionists (TV series)

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

Substantial amount of content is lifted directly from the subject's IMDB page and may constitute a WP:COPYVIO. Subject itself does not meet WP:GNG Variety312 (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and Canada. Variety312 (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike (Twin Peaks)

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG and should be removed. Much of the existing content is available in the Twin Peaks article. Variety312 (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Entertainment. Variety312 (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: See page. Subject of secondary coverage and important in the economy of the series. -Mushy Yank. 23:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 23:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

X Factor (Bulgarian TV series)

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

Content already exists in the main The X Factor article. Some of the analysis and detail here would appear to constitute WP:OR. Variety312 (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and Bulgaria. Variety312 (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The X Factor: This is overloaded with detail. Merge any relevant items. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chinnakannan Sivasankaran

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

Fails WP:GNG. There are a lot of WP:NEWSORGINDIA type of sources, web desk reports. Lacks high-quality in-depth sources. The companies he founded are notable but notability cannot be WP:INHERITED. Gheus (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Another Draft of This article [[13]] was declined in AFC by multiple reviewers for the lack of notability. When acceptance based on available sources deemed difficult, it was published by same creator in main space without adding anything significant in the article in terms of independent high quality sources to justify notability. On top, the article was moved back from the draft to main space , when it was asked for improvement and to incubate into draft space. I have brought this information here just to bring out the background of the article Infront of other who may be interested in discussion. As mentioned by Gheus (talk) , beinger founder of a company which is closed now, doesn't always apply for WP:INHERITED. Rahmatula786 (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with most of the concerns raised by the nominator and Rahmatula786 regarding sourcing issues, particularly WP:NEWSORGINDIA-type sources and WP:INHERITED. Many of the references cited in the article are unbylined and primarily focus on the business ventures founded by this businessman , with some even reflecting his personal views. However, my search for better sources has yielded some credible alternatives on this Chennai billionaire such this, this, this, this, this, and this which provide more in-depth reporting beyond his business ventures and brief mentions.

The subject has also been involved in multiple high-profile controversies that have had lasting impacts and have been extensively covered by leading media outlets. These include legal matters and public disputes involving former Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran, CBI investigations, issues related to Aircel's sale to Ananda Krishnan, allegations of fraud involving IDBI Bank, and conflicts with Tata Teleservices' Cyrus Mistry.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]

By including these sources and covering these aspects, the article could be improved in terms of neutrality and encyclopedic tone.Jitendra indulkar (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fores India article is based on an interview. Businessline article is tagged as "By Our Bureau" so likely paid. For WP:TIMESOFINDIA articles, see linked WP:RSN discussions - we cannot use it to satisfy WP:GNG criteria. Gheus (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and lawsuits related coverage is not enough to pass WP:CRIME. Gheus (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not all Indian News websites are paid. Not all The Times of India articles are paid. This references is written and covered by Forbes editor N Madhavan. However, This is an interview but it is reliable and in-depth. also check WP:FORBES. AndySailz (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dam222 🌋 (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother: The Boss

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

Content already exists on Big Brother (franchise) article. Stand alone article does not meet wp:GNG. Variety312 (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. Variety312 (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind slowing down television-related AfDs, please? and in particular, if you suggest redirects or merging, you can start a discussion on the TPs of the concerned pages. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 00:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kids' Choice Award for Favorite Male TV Star

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

Article has been tagged since 2011. Although numerous edits have been made, none have added citations. Recommend merging with larger article on Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards Variety312 (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Variety312 (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Feels like you could just easily add the source for each ceremony from each year's KCA article rather than just adding it to a vortex of deletions. Nathannah • 📮 19:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother Panamá

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

No substantive wp:RS were found during WP:Before. Content already exists on larger article about Big Brother (franchise). Variety312 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and Panama. Variety312 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor – A sziget

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

Lots of edits since 2011 by no WP:RS. merge with larger article on Survivor television program. Survivor (franchise) Variety312 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and Hungary. Variety312 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches introduced 1977–78

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

Article appears to be original research. Merge content with Saturday Night Live if anything.Variety312 (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Entertainment. Variety312 (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree a merger is probably in order, but I seem to recall some good discussion on another SNL AfD a year (or more, maybe?) back that had some good ideas on reorganization. Any chance we can find and link to that? Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the extent of the content that has to be merged, but merging to Saturday Night Live is indeed the best option. Capitals00 (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See List of recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches. Got dozens of these articles. Most seasons have their own article of this type. All of these articles should be discussed together, since it'd make no sense to delete one and not the rest. Dream Focus 16:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dad Camp

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

Conducted WP:Before and no substantive WP:RS exists. If consensus to keep, recommend article be merged with VH1 Variety312 (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Entertainment. Variety312 (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sumit Gupta

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Mentions along with companies, unreliable sources, interviews, etc. Moved to draft space as an WP:ATD but moved right back by creator who has a clear WP:COI. CNMall41 (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

contributor to this article don't have any close connection with its subject. Whatever written in the article are only based on the news sources. Every statement is supported by supportive news sources. Naanioffl (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true based on your own disclosure for the image you uploaded, and the image you uploaded for Shashwat Singh. COI is a side issue that can be discussed on your talk page. In the meantime, if you are able to point out the references that are about the subject as opposed to just mentions or interviews. We need references that talk about him in-depth. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, Please check the following significant news coverages about the subject (Which are used in the article). Those are not just media mentions. Those are proper news articles about Sumit Gupta.

1. https://www.apnnews.com/sumit-gupta-from-small-town-beginnings-to-leading-indias-crypto-revolution/

2. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/invest/we-are-still-at-the-beginning-of-something-huge-coindcx-founders-on-the-future-of-crypto/articleshow/118702888.cms?from=mdr

3. https://www.forbesindia.com/article/special/crypto-will-not-be-hit-as-hard-as-other-startup-sectors-sumit-gupta/76855/1

4. https://aithority.com/interviews/aithority-interview-with-sumit-gupta-co-founder-ceo-coindcx/

5. https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/coindcx-founders-tell-the-story-of-one-of-indias-largest-crypto-exchanges-2469435

6. https://www.businesstoday.in/crypto/story/crypto-industry-is-moving-faster-than-any-other-sector-says-sumit-gupta-of-coindcx-308951-2021-10-10

7. https://www.werisebyliftingothers.in/2024/08/biogarphy-of-sumit-gupta-co-founder-and.html

8. https://www.fortuneindia.com/multimedia/creating-startup-in-crypto-is-difficult-40u40-2024-sumit-gupta-coindcx/118143

9. https://www.dnaindia.com/business/report-meet-man-who-started-business-from-ordinary-flat-now-runs-rs-16000-crore-company-as-3084277

10. https://www.dnaindia.com/business/report-meet-man-who-started-business-from-a-small-flat-built-rs-16000-crore-company-in-4-years-he-is-from-3072678#google_vignette

11. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/expert-view/web3-is-going-to-help-india-and-add-value-to-the-current-financial-systems-says-coindcxs-sumit-gupta/articleshow/90952667.cms?from=mdr

12. https://www.forbesindia.com/article/cryptocurrency/india-is-going-to-be-a-clear-global-hub-for-web3-sumit-gupta-at-namaste-web3/83697/1

13.https://www.businesstoday.in/crypto/story/coinswitch-kuber-coindcx-ceos-to-chair-crypto-council-of-iamai-310843-2021-10-29

14. https://scroll.in/article/1003237/how-two-long-time-college-friends-built-indias-first-crypto-unicorn

15. https://m.rediff.com/money/special/tech-meet-the-man-behind-coindcx-indias-first-crypto-unicorn/20210916.htm

I think these news coverages are significant enough. Kindly check. All these news sources are used as citation. Naanioffl (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One more significant news coverage: https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/blitzscaling-in-times-of-uncertainty-meet-sumit-gupta-ceo-coindcx-121081700025_1.html Naanioffl (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not written as promotion. This page is written in a neutral way and each statement is supported with significant news sources. This page should not get deletion notice.

You can't just randomly come and put deletion notice on the page. First check the information and their supportive news sources before taking any random action. All the news sources are significant enough.

Not a single promotional tone was used while creation of the page. Each and every statement in the page is supported with proper notable news sources.

Also I don't have any close connection with the subject. I have done deep search on Google, found significant news sources and the article is made completely based on those notable news sources. Its not written to promote anything. Naanioffl (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not waste my time beyond the first four references as it demonstrates you are just posting links without assessing them. The first is bylined as "NS" which indicates it is WP:NEWSORGINDIA and unreliable. There is also no editorial oversight listed on the website so not reliable imho. The second is about the company and only mentions Gupta. It is also an interview so not WP:INDEPENDENT. The third is an interview so again, not independent. Also from Forbes India which is not Forbes so each reference there needs evaluated separately. The fourth is again, another interview. It is also paid media so not independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,

the following news sources are reliable, non paid media and significant too.

https://www.dnaindia.com/business/report-meet-man-who-started-business-from-ordinary-flat-now-runs-rs-16000-crore-company-as-3084277

https://www.dnaindia.com/business/report-meet-man-who-started-business-from-a-small-flat-built-rs-16000-crore-company-in-4-years-he-is-from-3072678#google_vignette

https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/coindcx-founders-tell-the-story-of-one-of-indias-largest-crypto-exchanges-2469435

https://www.businesstoday.in/crypto/story/crypto-industry-is-moving-faster-than-any-other-sector-says-sumit-gupta-of-coindcx-308951-2021-10-10

https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/blitzscaling-in-times-of-uncertainty-meet-sumit-gupta-ceo-coindcx-121081700025_1.html

https://scroll.in/article/1003237/how-two-long-time-college-friends-built-indias-first-crypto-unicorn

https://m.rediff.com/money/special/tech-meet-the-man-behind-coindcx-indias-first-crypto-unicorn/20210916.htm

https://www.fortuneindia.com/multimedia/creating-startup-in-crypto-is-difficult-40u40-2024-sumit-gupta-coindcx/118143

https://www.businesstoday.in/crypto/story/crypto-industry-is-moving-faster-than-any-other-sector-says-sumit-gupta-of-coindcx-308951-2021-10-10

Kindly go though these news sources. I am requesting you to re-evaluate. Hoping for your positive response.

Thanks, and Regards. Naanioffl (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that Sumit Gupta does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for biographies is incorrect. His notability is well-established through significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, as well as recognition from prestigious organisations. Here’s why:

1.⁠ ⁠Independent & Reliable Coverage in Leading Publications Sumit Gupta has been extensively covered by some of the most reputable Indian and global media houses. These articles are not merely interviews or passing mentions—they provide in-depth analysis of his role in shaping India’s crypto landscape.

Business Standard – "Blitzscaling in Times of Uncertainty: Meet Sumit Gupta, CEO CoinDCX" (Aug 2021) : https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/blitzscaling-in-times-of-uncertainty-meet-sumit-gupta-ceo-coindcx-121081700025_1.html

A detailed business profile highlighting his leadership and CoinDCX's growth trajectory.

Not a trivial mention or an interview—this is a feature story assessing his impact.

Scroll.in – "How Two Long-time College Friends Built India’s First Crypto Unicorn" : https://scroll.in/article/1003237/how-two-long-time-college-friends-built-indias-first-crypto-unicorn

An independent piece covering Sumit’s entrepreneurial journey and the rise of CoinDCX.

Hindu Business Line – "India Must Not Shy Away from Crypto Regulations, Says CoinDCX CEO" : https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/money-and-banking/india-must-not-shy-away-from-crypto-regulations-coindcx-ceo-says/article69100847.ece

Discusses Sumit’s views on regulatory frameworks, positioning him as a thought leader.

Moneycontrol – "Regulation on Offshore Crypto Exchanges to Drive Volumes for Indian Peers: Sumit Gupta of CoinDCX" : https://www.moneycontrol.com/technology/regulation-on-offshore-crypto-exchanges-to-drive-volumes-for-indian-peers-sumit-gupta-of-coindcx-article-12755730.html

Features industry insights and expert opinions, not just an interview.

Navbharat Times – "Success Story of Sumit Gupta: IIT Alumni Who Founded CoinDCX Valued at ₹16,000 Cr from a Flat" : https://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/business/business-news/success-story-of-sumit-gupta-iit-alumni-who-founded-coindcx-valued-16000-cr-from-flat/articleshow/109045249.cms

Recognizes his entrepreneurial journey as an independent case study.

DNA India – "Meet the Man Who Started Business from a Small Flat and Built ₹16,000 Cr Company in 4 Years" : https://www.dnaindia.com/business/report-meet-man-who-started-business-from-a-small-flat-built-rs-16000-crore-company-in-4-years-he-is-from-3072678#google_vignette

A feature detailing his contribution to the Indian startup ecosystem.

2.⁠ ⁠Quoted as an Industry Expert by Top Media Outlets

Beyond direct coverage, Sumit Gupta is frequently quoted as a credible source on cryptocurrency by major publications:

Times of India – "CoinDCX Co-Founder on Bitcoin Exchange WazirX’s Plan" : https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/coindcx-co-founder-on-bitcoin-exchange-wazirxs-55/45-plan-hate-to-be-saying-this-/articleshow/112126514.cms

Economic Times – "Crypto and High Bourses: Traders Come Up Trumps" : https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/cryptocurrency/crypto-and-high-bourses-traders-come-up-trumps/articleshow/115234343.cms

Business Today – "Coindcx Co-Founder Criticises WazirX’s Recovery Plan" : https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/news/story/utter-nonsense-coindcx-co-founder-criticises-wazirxs-recovery-plan-for-recent-230-million-security-breach-439328-2024-07-29

These are few independent reports where Sumit’s insights shape the discourse, demonstrating his influence in the industry.

3.⁠ ⁠Recognized by Prestigious Organizations

Sumit Gupta has been honored with several independent recognitions, reinforcing his credibility and leadership:

Fortune India 40 Under 40 (2024) : https://www.fortuneindia.com/multimedia/creating-startup-in-crypto-is-difficult-40u40-2024-sumit-gupta-coindcx/118143

Forbes 30 Under 30 : https://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30-2022/icons-30-those-who-just-missed-the-list/73719/1

Hurun Report - Self-made Entrepreneurs of the Millennia : https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/isha-ambani-akash-ambani-ankush-sachdeva-ghazal-alagh-feature-in-huruns-india-under35s-young-entrepreneurs-list/articleshow/113692023.cms

These accolades are awarded independently by reputable organizations with rigorous selection criteria.

Conclusion: Strong Case for Wikipedia Notability

Multiple reliable, independent sources provide in-depth coverage of Sumit Gupta.

Recognized industry expert, frequently quoted in top-tier financial publications.

Recipient of multiple independent awards, reinforcing his credibility.

If Wikipedia editors require additional citations, we can provide more references. However, dismissing his well-documented impact based on a superficial assessment would be misleading.

Would you like more detailed excerpts from these articles to further strengthen the case? Naanioffl (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ISQ.networks Press Agency

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NCORP with a lack of significant coverage. Let'srun (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Television, Companies, and Germany. Let'srun (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother (Hungarian TV series)

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

Article has been stagnant for more than a decade with no citations. Content is already available in Big Brother (franchise) article and should be merged there or deleted entirely. Variety312 (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Hungary. Variety312 (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother (Swiss TV series)

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

Article has been sitting around for years with no citations. Much of the content is captured in the Big Brother (franchise) article. Variety312 (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Variety312 (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's not nothing [23] [24] [25] [26]. I didn't go through all the search results since that had 1000+ more [27]. This does probably pass GNG scrolling through that but NOPAGE might be a consideration here. But we do have separate articles for most of the other nationality series it seems, and they are effectively different shows. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Albertto

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

Fails GNG. I can't find any coverage except for 1988 article in LA Times. Article is completely promotional and was created by banned user. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 20:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 20:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Panama. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Street Party (TV series)

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

Article has been sitting around since 2006 with no substantive WP:RS. Article should be deleted complete or merged with MTV.Variety312 (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Variety312 (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and Music. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andranik Avetisyan

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

Non-notable person. AgerJoy 20:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Armenia. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geo storm

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

Unclear that anything at this dabpage is actually ambiguous. Geo Storm is not known as Geostorm, and vice-versa. Users seeking GunForce II and Geomagnetic storm are not likely to use the search term "geo storm". This can all be handled with hatnotes. Delete. 162 etc. (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Gate One Bratislava

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

Fails wp:GNG. Not a notable hotel. Creator of the article made only 70 edits (most related to hotels/tourism), this is their only article. The most important link redirects to an advertising agency, I can't find what was there via the internet archive. The current hotel website doesn't include the most interesting claims from the article (the chandelier and the part of an old tree). Only claim to fame is the architectural prize, but the hotel was only nominated, it was also only for the interior. There is very little coverage for it. Rolluik (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Travel and tourism, and Slovakia. Rolluik (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sometimes hotels are notable, and I'm not passing judgment on this one - but it's written so promotionally that even it is somehow notable, TNT is the best option. SportingFlyer T·C 23:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaki Singer

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

Lack of WP:SIGCOV in secondary independent sources. Most of the sources used on this article are unreliable and the original creator of this article was blocked for sockpuppetry, may be created for promotional purposes. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC TheSlumPanda (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NEMO (Stellar Dynamics Toolbox)

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

Non-notable stellar dynamics toolkit. No coverage beyond a couple papers and a brief mention in a 1997 book. Note: the article was also started by one of the toolkit's co-creators. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Astronomy, and Computing. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aranmula Palace

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

The article has been subject to several AfDs under multiple titles (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aranmula Kottaram and the much older Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aranmula palace). The article has weak sourcing and search results turn almost none that can demonstrate wp:notability. Recommend redirection to Aranmula as with the most recent AfD (that was closed three months ago!). Please note that the author's edits mostly revolve around promoting the palace as a standalone article. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Royalty and nobility, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What with Aranmula palace (AfD discussion), Aranmula Kottaram (AfD discussion), Aranmula Mangattu Palace, Aranmula Vadake Kottaram (Northern Palace), Aranmula Palace (Aranmula Palace), Aranmula Palace (Aranmula Kottaram), Aranmula Pala (Aranmula Kotta), Draft:Aranmula Kottaram, Draft:Aranmula Mangattu Kottaram, and Aranmula Mangattu Kottaram it is becoming hard to keep track. It doesn't help that the articles don't clarify which of these is the real Kottaram. Uncle G (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. If this is a duplicate of another article, then it could be redirected there, but in the absence of a better redirect target, the town article is the most appropriate. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both this article and the equally poorly sourced page Aranmula Mangattu Palace to Aranmula. I agree with the user above that it's becoming hard to keep track of the drafts and all the similar pages. Keivan.f^Talk 19:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Manolache

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

While his death is tragic, he himself fails notability. Played only one game at the top level of Romanian football, while coverage is only of his death and career statistics. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 16:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Romania. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 16:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider Liga II as national level as well, it is fully professional. From my POV he was considered a full fledged professional player starting with the 2023-2024 season. Americanu197 (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He played one match for FCSB, the most popular Romanian team, in Liga I, the top-tier football league. The other games played in the second-tier which is also a professional one. Not a well-known young player, but still I think it is notable enough. Acid Mammoth (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As tragic as his death is (at this age), there is absolutely no reason having an entry of him in this encyclopedia; in other words, a guy died untimely. Sadly, but that is it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:C70C:F200:28FB:1DF2:8D5F:1671 (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Note NFOOTY is obsolete and has been for some years, so passing/failing totally irrelevant. Giant Snowman 09:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman Fixed. I didn't know if an equivalent to that existed so I went with it. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 16:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only argument is WP:SPORTSCRIT. Giant Snowman 18:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he has played in over 20 professional football games.GrimRob (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has sources and 20 game sin fully pro Romanian top division. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - theres so much coverage of him, this should definitely pass GNG. Article could do with some work to bring it up to standard though. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Considering the player's early death, he achieved sufficient notoriety within the period of time allotted to him, being called up by Romania national youth teams and played for FCSB, the country's main team. Svartner (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Youth teams aren't the same as the actual national team, and he played only once for FCSB. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 15:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the sources would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Those claiming there is coverage of the topic would do well do concretely demonstrate such.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diamonds Are Forever, So Are Morals

AfDs for this article:

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

While reviewing my past AfD nominations, I came across this page and noticed that it has been further improved. Upon closer examination, I discovered that the book in question was published under the Penguin Enterprise imprint, which is essentially a vanity publishing division of Penguin Random House India. As per WP:NBOOKS, "Self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press do not establish notability." So, I am nominating the page again. This book is simply a strategic attempt to improve someone's public image. Charlie (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That it was self-published doesn't make it not notable if there are reviews. It just tends to correlate with a lack of reviews. Reviews were brought up in the last AfD. Do you have new reason to believe those are unreliable (not out of the question since NEWSORGINDIA) PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my personal opinion, I feel that a book published through a vanity press and written by a rocket scientist rather than a business expert may not have the same credibility as works from any other established author. Also, a glance at the author's Wikipedia page shows that they have written on almost every topic imaginable, which is quite something. Interestingly, the book is mostly reviewed in Indian news portals (which, as everyone knows, lacks integrity WP:NEWSORGINDIA) instead of respected academic journals, which makes one wonder about the recognition it’s getting. Overall, things don’t quite seem to add up. Now, if I let my imagination run a little further, it wouldn’t be too far-fetched to think that Govind Dholakia, the subject of this autobiography, might have funded this autobiography to bolster his bid for a Rajya Sabha seat. While it is being claimed that he has been 'elected,' a closer look at the process tells a different story. In India, Rajya Sabha members from each state are chosen by the state's MLAs through an indirect election using proportional representation with a single transferable vote (STV). Given that Gujarat's legislature is dominated by BJP MLAs and that Dholakia was fielded as a BJP candidate, it’s hardly surprising that he secured the seat. It does raise the question, though was this a genuine election or just a well-orchestrated move to further his legacy? Charlie (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see your points, however the issue is that an author or publisher's credibility isn't necessarily the deciding factor in whether or not a book passes notability guidelines or is independently notable of its author or subject. What is the deciding factor would be coverage in independent and reliable sources.

Now as far as sourcing goes, you're correct in that there is an issue with churnalism in Indian news sources. However that doesn't mean that all Indian news sources are unusable. Some are, but others can still be usable - and with others it might be a case of where in the paper the article was published rather than the outlet as a whole. WP:ICTFSOURCES has a pretty good list of what's usable and what isn't. The list is geared towards film, however it should suffice in this situation as well. Offhand with the article, most of the sources are from usable outlets like Deccan Chronicle, The Asian Age, and Outlook India. The Indian Express is usable as long as it's not from their Brand section. DeshGujarat and The Hindu Businessline are kind of questionable. Both would need to go through WP:RS/N to determine its usability even for minor details. What doesn't help with THB is that the film sourcing list mentions them as an example of incorrect reporting. All of that means that even if we remove the questionable sources, that still leaves us with three definitely usable sources, all of which are reviews - so notability is established.

Now instead of arguing notability or bringing up the article's creation history, a better argument to make would be whether or not there's enough information about the book to make an individual article worthwhile or if it's largely redundant to the main article on Dholakia. One common issue with biographies is that sometimes the book fails to get any coverage other than reviews of the work. This means that there's no coverage on the writing process or any other information that would be unique to the book - note that this coverage would include primary sources like the author's website or interviews about the book's development. In cases like this the book may pass notability guidelines, but still not have enough overall information to really be all that useful - so in some cases it ends up that the book can be more or less summarized in a paragraph on the subject's Wikipedia page. Now, I haven't looked at any of the sources so it's entirely possible that this coverage does exist and can be used to flesh out the book article and make it worthwhile. I think that should absolutely be explored. Otherwise it's a case of merge and redirect rather than delete because the book is notable - it's just a question of where it should be covered. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ReaderofthePack your words leave no room for debate. If this AfD discussion requires a proper and conclusive closure, it must be grounded in the reasoning put forth by you. Thank you for not only guiding this discussion but also helping me understand better. Charlie (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guitarsongs Volume 1

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

Does not appear to be a notable EP. KaisaL (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. KaisaL (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Andre666 (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Love, Surrender, Forgiveness

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

Does not appear to be a notable EP. KaisaL (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. KaisaL (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Andre666 (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Ending Romance

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

Appears to be an insignificant EP release. KaisaL (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. KaisaL (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GERRI

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

No indication of importance. If the page was about a real person, an individual animal, a commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event, it would probably fit CSD criterion A7. That's why I listed this at PROD at first, but it was controversial, so I'm listing this at WP:AFD. RaschenTechner (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Player 457 (Squid Game)

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

I'd redirect this, but there is no mention in the suitable target. I also note that the picture which is claimed to be the article author's own work has been downloaded from the internet, & is therefore a probable copyvio. I can't figure out how to nominate this for deletion. TheLongTone (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've nominated the image for speedy deletion on Commons. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's a fanmade character and not even a well-known one (I don't think it would still be allowed here even if it was). HOPPIO [talk page] 21:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.TheLongTone (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Durusau

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

While certainly accomplished, I cannot find enough in-depth references to show that he meets WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Law. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, United States of America, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muroosystems

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

Advert tone, cross-wiki spam. Aqurs1 (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I'm new to Wikipedia, not spam. Can you point out exactly what's wrong? I'll fix it. Cycm1122 (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look on WP:NOTPROMO, and article does not meet notability guildline. Aqurs1 (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the text and the links. Please check again, thanks! Cycm1122 (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damarea Liao

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

WP:BLP1E - the Kardashian thing. Fails WP:BIO. I am not persuaded that "National Youth Poet Laureate to Japan" confers notability. WP:NOTINHERITED from random relatives. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Television, Nigeria, Japan, and South Carolina. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

There are still several articles and reliable sources that confirm that she is Notable. It's still of widely conversed public conversation and discussions through news sources. Blakebi (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC) — Blakebi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The media itself confirms notability. The Kardashian feud is very talked about in the media. Malanakinsley (talk 16:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This doesn't seem to be notable. All I see is IMdb, Instagram, and some other stuff. 208.56.148.137 (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are multiple international headlines in China and Japan. It doesn't look like she's as relevant to the U.S but more China. I think Google blocks those. 205.186.47.1 (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in the European Union

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted a year ago; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in the European Union. Those reasons for deleting it still apply. Brian Kendig (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Europe. Brian Kendig (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am open to keeping this if a WP:NLIST-qualifying source can be found, but one isn't present and I can't easily find one. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article stood for over a decade. The European Union is a sui generis federative superstate and as such I find it reasonable to have a separate list for buildings on its territory, seeing it as a near parallel to List of tallest buildings in the United States. Therefore this isn't a redundancy with List of tallest buildings in Europe just as List of tallest buildings in the United States isn't redundant with List of tallest buildings in North America. A continent's a continent, and a polity's a polity. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, is your position that the situation has changed since the previous AfD or that the previous AfD got it wrong? TompaDompa (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the previous AfD got it wrong and not enough users got a chance to voice their opinion. The article has been on Wikipedia since 2007... It's no good to delete it with 4 votes just like that Chick Pea Corea (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination refers only to the reasons in the previous nomination which states "It's basically the same list as List of tallest buildings in Europe minus Russia and Turkey." That is a flawed rationale. The United Kingdom and Switzerland are also not present on this EU list, and none of the top 21 buildings on the Europe list are present on the EU list. So rather than the lists being "basically the same" they are completely different. As to notability, numerous sources (e.g books) refer to the "tallest building in the EU", referring to various specific buildings depending on publication date as the tallest changes over time and buildings move down the list.----Pontificalibus 15:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Do those sources cover the tallest buildings (plural) in the EU, e.g. by providing a top list or a timeline, or only the tallest building (singular)? TompaDompa (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:NLIST states "one accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group" which means it is not a requirement. It also states "lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes are often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability". This list clearly falls into that category.----Pontificalibus 08:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  It's not really discussing the buildings as a group if the sources are only stating which one is the very tallest, though, is it? That's why I'm asking. TompaDompa (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I didn't suggest it was, as I said there is no notability requirement that the buildings as a group should be discussed in sources. ----Pontificalibus 12:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  No, but it would strengthen the case for keeping the list. I take it then that they do not. TompaDompa (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of tallest buildings in Europe should cover all these buildings. This is merely a subset. The EU is not any sort of state, but merely a collection of states. So what exactly is its purpose? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yet the List of tallest buildings in Europe will limit comparison, because many cities in the EU simply have no buildings over 190m tall. (And to say that "the EU is merely a collection of states" denies its history and the fact that it is a well known entity) KatVanHuis (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The European Union is widely acknowledged as a sui generis federative superstate. Please educate yourself on this topic. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid patronising other editors. I'm fully aware what the EU is and is not. But given every country within it also has (or should have) its own list of tallest buildings, this list is pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And nothing should stand against making such a List of tallest buidlings in COUNTRY X page. This is a free encyclopedia. But as such, and note this page has been around since 2006/2007--so almost 20 years--a European Union-specific list has attracted specifically large attention and demand. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither longevity nor popularity in themselves mean that keeping a particular article around is a good idea. We have had articles that existed for a long time and attracted a lot of attention where the decision still ended up being getting rid of them in one way or another for one reason or another. TompaDompa (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so far, no cogent argument for essentially discriminating against the EU has been put forth. And I say this as an EU citizen. Yes! There is such a thing as an EU citizen! In fact all citizens of member states of the EU are EU citizens. Is there such a concept in ASEAN? :) Chick Pea Corea (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discriminating? I would on the contrary say that your position constitutes advocating for giving the EU special treatment—we have these lists for countries and continents, but the EU is neither. Would you equally be in favour of corresponding lists for the Commonwealth of Nations, NATO, African Union, United Nations, and so on? If not, why not? What is it that makes the European Union a relevant grouping in the context of tallest buildings? TompaDompa (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People are only citizens of the EU if they are citizens of an EU member nation. There is no separate EU citizenship. It is the nation state that is important, not the EU. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though not every EU member state is part of Shengen, there is a free market in the EU. Also, these EU citizens (while still having their national passport) have an 'EU citizen style' ID-card. These facts don't turn the EU into a superstate overnight, but it's a process that has started in the 1950s and is ongoing. Stating that the EU is merely a collection of states is denying an decade-long integration process. Not too be missed: the EU not only has a flag, a parliament, elections and laws but also an anthem. KatVanHuis (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list renders a completely different result from List of tallest buildings in Europe, exactly because it leaves out Russia, Turkey, the United Kingdom (and Switzerland). Which means that indeed Moskou, Istanbul and London don't contribute; creating a better comparison in the sense that more countries and cities qualify to be in this list. KatVanHuis (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question We could, conceivably, create similar lists for any number of groupings or countries (or whatever): List of tallest buildings in the Iberian peninsula, List of tallest buildings in Western Europe, List of tallest buildings in the Schengen area, and List of tallest buildings in European NATO member countries are just some of the possible lists we could create. Many of the possible scopes would overlap susbstantially with others. Given that the geographic scope of the list currently under discussion is a proper subset of the scope of list of tallest buildings in Europe (and a superset of List of tallest buildings in Germany and so on), what is the case for this particular scope having a separate list? Do sources comment on this particular geographic scope in the context of the tallest buildings specifically, or is there some other reason? TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So far there are: List of tallest buildings in the Balkans, List of tallest buildings in the Baltic states and List of tallest buildings in Scandinavia. KatVanHuis (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That does not answer the question. TompaDompa (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. Yet it shows that lists exist about entities other than countries or continents. I'm sure that (for instance) the Baltic states have strong ties; the integration of EU member states is not going to be less strong. KatVanHuis (talk) 07:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the relevance of this to listing the tallest buildings? That's the question that determines whether this article should exist. TompaDompa (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Skyscrapers are built and compete within specific consolidated markets and niches. These form specific groupings and these groupings are suitable for making lists based on them. Nobody in the European Union, for example, cares for the skyscrapers in Istanbul or Moscow. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for the question "what is the case for this particular scope having a separate list?": I mentioned that earlier and it is also related to Chick Pea Corea's reply. The top 25 of List of tallest buildings in Europe only has 2 entries are from the EU and in a matter of years it will none/zero/nada. More importantly, many of the EU cities don't have any buildings over 190m and fail to make the list entirely. So for the purpose of sharing information (WP:NLIST: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.) this list should be kept. This list simply renders a completely different ouptut than List of tallest buildings in Europe, and is therefore informative. KatVanHuis (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let's pursue that line of reasoning. The same thing would of course be true of quite a few list scopes. As a concrete example, it would be true for List of tallest buildings in the Schengen Area. Given that these lists would overlap substantially and in that particular case be in large part redundant to each other, what is the case for this one as opposed to the other in the specific and for this one and not all the other possible ones in general? That is, what is the relevance of the EU grouping to building height? TompaDompa (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "Europe list" and the "EU list" simply do not overlap substantially. Both lists have currently 90-100 buildings and only 30 overlap. That's less than half and not substantial in any way. KatVanHuis (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The EU list and the Schengen list would, however. So: why EU? Why not Schengen? What is the relevance of the EU grouping to building height? TompaDompa (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Notability. The mere fact that the EU list is more notable as media coverage of "the tallest in the EU" is far greater than "the tallest in Schengen area". KatVanHuis (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now we might be getting somewhere. If the topic as such is covered by reliable sources, that's a good argument in favour of having a stand-alone list article. To clarify: do those sources cover the tallest buildings (plural) in the EU, e.g. by providing a top list or a timeline, or only the tallest building (singular)? TompaDompa (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading this, now I'm wondering if sources cover the tallest buildings in Europe, including a top list or a timeline, or only the tallest building? KatVanHuis (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though that's irrelevant to this list about the tallest buildings in the EU. TompaDompa (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would this or this work? KatVanHuis (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not being familiar with the outlet (I have no idea if that's a a reliable and appropriate source for this kind of content or not) in the case of the former nor being able to access the entire source in the case of the latter, the best answer I can give when it comes to those specific sources is "maybe". But now we are at least talking about a relevant factor for whether there should be a stand-alone list article for this topic, namely what the sources on the subject look like, which is certainly a step forward. The better the sourcing that can be demonstrated to exist, the stronger the case for keeping this around. TompaDompa (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe...? Meanwhile, even in the UK there is interest in the tallest building in the EU. Besides that one, "your" source mentions the EU and ranks the buildings in Paris, but indeed doesn't provide a full top-25 list. But there are articles on tall buildings in the EU, which won't be the tallest, and from different countries([28],[29],[30]).

However the motivation given on top of this page was merely Those reasons for deleting it still apply. referring to round one: Redundant list. It's basically the same list as List of tallest buildings in Europe minus Russia and Turkey. They forgot at least to mention the UK, Norway and Switzerland. But that's not the worst: it's not true because (quoting myself): the "Europe list" and the "EU list" simply do not overlap substantially. Both lists render a different result, and so both are informative.

And sure, there's another reason mentioned: sources I could find talked about the entirety of Europe and not just the European Union. But how extensive was this search and was it only done using English language? Because only in Ireland the official language is English (beside Gaelic). Finding sources requires a search in all official EU languages. The eagerness to delete this page scares me a bit. KatVanHuis (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe. You'll note I'm not taking a position on what should happen to this list either way. My questions should not be construed as a demand to convince me personally, but as an invitation to provide the best case possible for your position. Countering the arguments about the redundancy of the list by pointing out that while the scopes overlap substantially the actual entries do not is a pretty good rebuttal, for instance. On the other hand, how extensive was this search [...] Finding sources requires a search in all official EU languages. is a weak argument (the way to rebut the assertion that sources do not exist is to demonstrate that they do exist, not to assert that they could exist), while there are articles on tall buildings in the EU, which won't be the tallest is to my eye a non-argument/entirely beside the point. And The eagerness to delete this page scares me a bit. seems to me a rather silly overreaction. TompaDompa (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the invitation and also for engaging in the different talks here. While I agree that the way to rebut the assertion that sources do not exist is to demonstrate that they do exist, we are facing a practical problem... The EU has literally dozens of official languages and proving that these sources exist, could take me weeks. So by time I'd be finished, this page will very likely already have been closed. And yet... Meanwhile I explored Spanish language sources which mentioned the 10 tallest buildings, the 50 tallest buildings and the 100 tallest buildings in the EU.

I expect that when one would ask 100 psychologists whether expressing one's fear is a 'silly overreaction', that the majority will say it's just a reaction and that indeed actions like SCREAMING (or even worse aggression) could be classified as an overreaction. It still scares me that both nominators were so eager in nominating this page that they couldn't even properly present the facts, the first one simply claiming this list is redundant (fot the third time: it's not) and the second claiming reasons for deleting it still apply. KatVanHuis (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen WP:AfD discussions being relisted upon request to get more time to find sources or evaluate/use ones already found (as an example: WP:Articles for deletion/Mesklin, where I found a bunch of sources during the course of the AfD and put them to use). Moreover, one of the purposes of WP:Deletion review is if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page, which includes new sources being found or published. So there's not that much of a rush, really. TompaDompa (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm practically new to AfD discussions but yes, I've seen the WP:Deletion review page before, but the 4 steps described in the yellow box looked so daunting, that I had put that all the way down on my to-do-list. That there's not much of a rush, is not what I felt when I looked at the first nomination, as the decision to delete it was taken in less days than that I have fingers.

Meanwhile, a very quick search in the French language resulted in the 5 tallest buildings, the 10 tallest buildings in the EU, plus a translation and a summary/review of The Economist article showing that that article is more about tallest buildings in the EU than in Europe. KatVanHuis (talk) 10:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In light of the recent spats between the EU and Donald Trump... There has been increased awareness in a pan-EU identity. This list is important. The EU is important. I'm saying this as a German. Please understand 2A00:F41:1C2F:8B5:841A:C93D:5297:3C73 (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the German IP (WP:NOTAVOTE) just above and per Pontificalibus's comments specifically "referring to various specific buildings" not "buildings as a group" as in, "...there is no notability requirement that the buildings as a group should be discussed in sources. This list is WP:original research and synthesis. It does not matter how "important" the European Union is, how big a "spat" they have with Trump, or the increasing pan-EU identity, without sources a keep !vote is only "but we like long, unsourced repetivelist "lists", which the many ones listed (including this one) is redundant, and unsourced, as groups. Even if Turkey joins the EU the policy states, Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. The fact that improvements are needed for Wikipedia lags far behind article creation. An Admin closer is supposed to consider all the !votes based on policy. It does not matter if all the individual buildings pass WP:NBUILDING or GNG. Ranker.com gives the top 25. Worldlistsmania.com lists 21, with an additional 14 in cities. The criteria for passing notability is what is published significatnely in reliable and independent sources. This article lists 90 buildings, with an additional unsourced 37 in the "Buildings by pinnacle height" subsection, a further 15 in the "Buildings under construction" subsection, and let's add 8 more in the "Timeline of the tallest buildings in the EU/EEC" subsection. Sources added on individual building do not count. skyscrapercenter.com is the closest list (one) and it not a reliable source. an It is advertising site that informs us we can join at the $10,000 level or the $500.00 level. If there is proper sourcing for the list, not one person has added it. As some form of full blown, unsourced, and lengthy aid to navigation: This is why we have categories. As for the lame argument that other stuff exists, an example of redundancy would be List of tallest buildings in North America and List of tallest buildings in Canada. Trump has not yet bought Canada, which is, according to sources, in North America-- Otr500 (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That other stuff exists is not a lame argument. If List of tallest buildings in the Balkans exists, it's only better that List of tallest buildings in the European Union exists. I wonder where is the "significant" coverage in secondary sources of a listing of tallest buildings in the Balkans. OR, sticking to the subject of lists, what is the "significant" coverage in secondary sources of a List of European countries by average wage? I'm against users making up stringent criteria out of thin air just to deny something the right to exist. This list is greatly informative and has been for the past almost two decades. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The question before us is not whether the European Union is the same as Europe, or even whether the two lists are similar. The question is whether WP:NLIST is met by having this list discussed as a group by independent reliable sources. Other considerations, such as current political alliances, are irrelevant and will be discarded when closing this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Curious that you relisted this but the previous AfD was not relisted after only 4 votes across 1 week. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have found several sources discussing the tallest EU buildings as a group but the notable thing is that there are so few tall buildings.[31][32][33] However there is no requirement for external discussion of the topic as a group - this is only one possible criterion. The relisting comment immediately above shows a slight misunderstanding of WP:NLIST which actually says One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. It does not say that this is the only accepted reason. Thincat (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Might also note explicitly that WP:Notability is neither necessary nor sufficient for a WP:Stand-alone list article to be appropriate. Non-notable topics may be appropriate for lists if they serve e.g. navigational purposes, and notable topics may be inappropriate for e.g. WP:TOOBROAD, WP:NOT, or WP:PAGEDECIDE reasons. TompaDompa (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Per WP:TOOBROAD: When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See "new list" link. Currently the List of tallest buildings in Europe is curtailed at a height over 190m, to prevent the list from being to long/broad. To make comparison possible of countries and cities with building only below 190m, it is useful and informative and therefore the purpose of this list. KatVanHuis (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct it is not the only reason for keeping a list - the problem here is that with an absence of sources specifically talking about the EU, this is particular list violates either SYNTH, original research, or both. SportingFlyer T·C 22:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain this? Because "routine" calculations are not original research. KatVanHuis (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CALC does not strike me as particularly relevant here. Ordering entries numerically in descending order by height is a routine calculation, sure, but constructing a set is not, and I believe that's what they were referring to. TompaDompa (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NLIST is a low bar – we don't need to show that the topic meets the GNG, just that it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. The article from The Economist linked by Thincat clearly shows that this has been met – I even remember reading it when it was published last year. Also interesting are all of the many articles covering the completion of the Varso tower, like Thincats' above and this Architectural Digest article, which unfailingly mention the tower's distinction of being the tallest in the EU. Toadspike [Talk] 17:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer Do you believe the article in The Economist [34] is an NLIST qualifying source? Pinging per request in original !vote. Toadspike [Talk] 15:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can only read a little bit, but it talks about Europe AND the EU. I don't think it makes the subset clear. SportingFlyer T·C 22:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although the EU is not generally known for supertall buildings unlike other reigons, deleting the page would just make it harder to compare the building lengths. The article has stayed for well over a decade and has been useful to many people, especially in the Union. Additionally, creating smaller lists is just going to add clutter. Hinothi1 talk 09:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The question at hand is not the distinction between the EU and the European continent (or other definitions of Europe) but the existence of sourcing. Are the ones Thincat identified sufficient for this list to exist, regardless of the outcomes of other AfDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soft support

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

The sources on the page do not give significant coverage to the concept of soft support, mentioning it in passing as part of another topic. The article as it stands is completely WP:OR, and searching online sources has also only revealed mentions of the topic in academic articles on other situations rather then significant coverage of the concept itself. Per WP:NOTADICTIONARY, deletion is due. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Swing vote: This is a common concept in polling, but it doesn't need a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 14:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem with that outcome, but I would say merge without transferring anything over. The article as it stands is an OR essay.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that there is no content in the current article worth merging. Considering whether a redirect is appropriate, but not convinced Swing vote is the right target either. It doesn't always equate to swing voters. It can just be an indication of degree of support, and is also sometimes used to mean "apathy". Cielquiparle (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a load of newspaper clippings that say that some politician's support is "soft" in some way, from which is being induced a consistent meaning for this. If there were a consistent meaning, it should be discoverable in things like political science textbooks, or works on polling statistics. But I have found nothing in that regard, except for something that turned out to be nonce terminology used in one computer model, and a lot more clippings of the same kind from political biographies and histories. For the same reason, I cannot really support a redirect. Absent a verifiable definition of some kind, it's not really possible to definitely state what topic this is synonymous with. It's telling that a lot of the things that I found used quotation marks around "soft". If it's not possible to nail down even a definition, I don't see how we can have anything. Uncle G (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not sure that a merge or redirect makes any sense as the two concepts are not related, and "soft support" is not mentioned at Swing Vote. The mentions are about specific situations and I could not find coverage of the concept itself. --Enos733 (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lonestar Shootout 2022

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

No notable pro wrestling event. Most sources are just WP:ROUTINE coverage, no coverage after the show to prove notability. Searching for sources, it doesn't look like the event had coverage after [35] HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This recurrent event is the first of a continuous series of pay-per-views. Coverage from recently implemented reliable sources such as Pro Wrestling Dot Net, POSTWrestling, Fightful and Wrestling Observer Newsletter are enough to support WP:NOTABILITY. JeyReydar97 (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the article has coverage, there is no in-deep coverage of the event AFTER it happened. Wikipedia:Notability (events) talks about it. While the event was covered at the time, there is no much sources years after. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As demonstrated above, NJPW pay-per-views (as topics) are always subjects of WP:SIGCOV. However, they don't always need to have ongoing coverage since generally demonstrating WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NTEMP (no need for extra future articles to provide more coverage as established by NTEMP). The Duration of coverage subsection of the inclusion criteria also talks about it. Narrowing down to the hereby case, the article meets at least two main criterias of WP:DEPTH through it's references. Sources such as [36] which are not featured in the article but can be googled check the WP:FUTUREEVENT criteria. All of the reliable sources already featured in the article check the criteria of WP:DIVERSE. JeyReydar97 (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Wrestling, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Rizvi

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

Draft on this subject was declined multiple times due to lack of notability. Since it was still under process of improvisation, editor has blanked the draft and moved the article into main space. Article doesn't meet BLP criteria. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Spirituality. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, Bihar, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tried to find some sources, but failed to do so. The subject does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NBIO as of now. Taabii (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I implore all of you to look at the sources provided already. Multiple established Canadian news articles (National Post, Toronto Sun, Toronto Star), JSTOR, and published books. BurimKazimi (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An editor on a similar forum says about a separate article, "My search through Google resources (e.g. Google Books, Google Scholar) and provincial archives (accessed through Vancouver City archives and UBC archives) yielded no in-depth coverage by reliable sources." This editor, regarding that article, is correct. See for yourself. Please note that this subject, however, must be far from such criteria, as subject is established clearly in Google Books, provincial news (National Post, Toronto Sun, Toronto Star,) Toronto city archives (multiple examples, some front-page,) JSTOR, and MEMRI. BurimKazimi (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please identify this sourcing not just vague waves
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're all in the article. BurimKazimi (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in the Balkans

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

Clearly WP:OR. The "Balkans" are not a clearly defined region, and no source covers any of this material as a concept. SportingFlyer T·C 10:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Geography. SportingFlyer T·C 10:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, arbitrary list as pointed above. It is also kind of pointless since even Istanbul has two buildings that are taller, on the Asian side. Lists of tallest buildings per country make more sense and they already exist. --Tone 10:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Various Wikipedia lists aren't covered by "sources" as RS generally do not concern themselves with lists or rankings of any kind, there are no "almanachs of lists" and atlases work differently, too. The author of the AfD is trying to uproot a significant part of Wikipedia by trying to uproot this particular page, and it's best if this was settled by a general Arbitration Committee to clarify Wikipedia policy on lists. See List of European countries by average wage.

Chick Pea Corea (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this !vote doesn't make any sense. Searching "tallest buildings in Europe" brings up lots of different sites which can be used to source that list. Searching "tallest buildings in the Balkans" only brings up Wikipedia mirrors and the occasional Reddit thread about a new building. This is not a "significant part of Wikipedia" but rather WP:SYNTH for a geographic area without a clear definition. The average wage list is a red herring. SportingFlyer T·C 22:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Balkan is very well and clearly defined region and this list definitely deserves to stay around. Боки 💬 📝 21:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The very first sentence in the article you linked even says it has various geographical and historical definitions and there are still no sources to support this specific grouping. SportingFlyer T·C 00:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm resigned to the fact that these lists will exist by continent, by country, and sometimes by secondary divisions and cities, but there's absolutely no point in doing this for vaguely defined regions. There's really no end to the various ways we could split up these sorts of lists, and there's just no benefit to doing so. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Im not understanding what all the fuss is about. Sure the "geographical definition" is kind of vague but everyone knows who the Balkan countries are. They're a big enough area and different from the rest of Europe. And with all the construction that is booming in the Balkans i think a list of their own is justified. I don't see a reason why this page should be deleted unless somebody has some personal vendetta against the balkans. BBB2021 (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"everyone knows who the Balkan countries are" – I thought I did, until clicking on Balkans and learning that half of Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia are cut off, while a part of Romania is included. So I, for one, did not know "who the Balkan countries are". Toadspike [Talk] 07:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Balkan countries and Balkans as a geographical area are indeed not the same. The description can be changed to make it clearer instead of deleting the whole list which is lazy. BBB2021 (talk) 08:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question Per WP:LISTCRITERIA, inclusion criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. Might those in favour of keeping this list explain how this requirement is met here? TompaDompa (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. These buildings are not discussed as a group anywhere. We can't just synthesise together a topic and create a Wikipedia article on it based on our own research. TompaDompa above has put it better than I can. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Cricket League

AfDs for this article:

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

Still the same as from previous AfD. Not enough coverage and not notable. Agent 007 (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, India, and Kerala. Agent 007 (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kadingilan Poblacion

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

Uncited and run-of-the-mill article on a non-notable barangay, Also appears to have been copypasted from someone's school project or some government PR website Borgenland (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to redirect or merge this. What do you think? Bearian (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong feelings for or against that for now. Borgenland (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Kadingilan Poblacion for further reference. Borgenland (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimír Barbora

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

Slovak men's footballer who only played 29 minutes in top flight. The only secondary news coverage I found is a passing mention on Teraz, which does not count towards significant coverage. Perhaps not surprising because other than that, there might results about a female Czech/Slovak bearer of the name Barbora being named with compatriot named Vladimír. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damodar Sharma

AfDs for this article:

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

On a WP:BEFORE search i didnt found any reliable source, fails WP:GNG as well as WP:SIGCOV. All references used in this biography are dead urls and being a vice chancellor doesn't inherit notability without coverage in the Secondary sources. Also he don’t have any prestigious award or high research career to gain notability. Fails WP:NACADEMIC TheSlumPanda (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could the nominator perhaps justify their claim that being vice chancellor (which here means head of an entire university) does not make the subject notable, and that secondary sources are required, when both of those claims would appear to be contradicted by WP:PROF#C6? C6 gives notability to heads of universities and does not require secondary sourcing for that notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment, @David. I appreciate the reference to WP:PROF#C6, which states that notability can be conferred to “The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.” While being a vice chancellor (head of a university) could theoretically qualify under this criterion, the guideline still operates within the broader context of Wikipedia’s notability policies, particularly WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to establish notability. WP:NPROF itself is not a standalone exemption from WP:GNG but rather a specific guideline that supplements it, and C6 is typically interpreted as applying when the role or institution is of such prominence that it inherently generates verifiable coverage.

In this case, my WP:BEFORE search did not uncover any reliable, independent secondary sources providing significant coverage of the subject’s tenure as vice chancellor or their broader academic career. The references in the article are dead URLs, and I couldn’t find alternative sources to substantiate notability. While the position of vice chancellor is significant, not every individual in such a role automatically meets the threshold for notability without evidence of broader impact or recognition (e.g., through awards, high-profile research, or media coverage), as outlined in WP:NACADEMIC and WP:SIGCOV. Without such evidence, I believe the article still fails to meet Wikipedia’s standards for inclusion.

I’d be happy to reconsider if reliable secondary sources can be provided to demonstrate the subject’s notability under C6 or any other criterion. Absent that, my nomination stands on the grounds of insufficient coverage and failure to meet WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. TheSlumPanda (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fact you are completely incorrect. WP:PROF does not operate in the broader context of WP:GNG. It is a separate notability standard with its own separate requirements that are not subsumed by GNG. (Nor do they strengthen GNG rather than being subsumed by them, as for instance WP:NORG does.) It explicitly states, as I said before, that independent secondary sourcing is not a requirement for verifying that its criteria are met. (The criteria must still be reliably sourced, but the sources can be primary and non-independent.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @David Eppstein, Recently i also created an article on a vice chancellor of 2 universities (one of them is central university in india) but that got rejected at Afc submission stating that the subject don’t have sig cov. (See). TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So this is all an exercise in WP:POINT because your drafts were badly sourced and/or some overworked AfC reviewers weren't familiar with WP:PROF? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No thats not because of WP:POINT, i nominated this article because this subject doesn’t have any presence in secondary sources on WP:BEFORE.TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSlumPanda, that was definitely a mistake on the part of the reviewer. I'll let them know. -- asilvering (talk) 05:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Eigen

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

No indication of notability. Of 11 refs, almost all are from his own works; one is an interview with him, one is an entry from Contemporary Authors: A Bio-Bibliographical Guide. He has written 45 books. It is not easy to find reviews other than publisher abstracts or Goodreads blurbs or equivalent; one of his better-known ones (caveat: I am not knowledgeable about this) appears to be Toxic Nourishment, and a search for reviews returns mostly sales sites. Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Psychology, and United States of America. Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His main works are Psychotic Core and Psychoanalytic Mystic.

I disagree strongly with him not being notable. Eigen is a major figure, and the fact that, e.g., Routledge published an introduction to his work (which is rare for a living person) testifies to that fact: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003002871/michael-eigen-loray-daws

His works are widely cited, as a search on Google Scholar indicates, with many of his papers and books having several hundred citations (which is significant for an individual). So disagreed w/r/t notability of Eigen.

However, I think you are rightfully calling attention to --- if implicitly --- to another issue: The page on Eigen has an insufficient number of external sources. Purely based on a cursory reading of this page one will likely --- and thus correctly --- come to the conclusion that Eigen is an isolated figure. In actuality, he is an important member of the psychoanalytic community, and he teaches worldwide (as his Seoul seminars indicate).

The article does not reflect that, however, and I am grateful for you bringing this to my/psy-community's attention. Once I have more time, I will try and add some external sources and appraisals.

But I strongly object to a deletion, Eigen is important, and the literature reflects that clearly. Honigfrau (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SWBC

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Article created by seemingly WP:SPA and has been tagged for notability issues for years.

From what I can see ignoring press releases, the remaining coverage doesn't meet WP:ORGCRITE. Routine stuff like hiring/firing news, reporting some acquisitions without further details , the company getting a rating or some non-notable award etc. There is some coverage on employment lawsuits but the focus is on the lawsuits rather than the company and per WP:ILLCON cannot be used to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 08:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and Texas. Imcdc Contact 08:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems nothing special or well-covered. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Connect (insurance company)

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

No evidence of notability in the article, spam Polygnotus (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article really needs to be updated more for its current ownership rather than its previous Ameriprise ownership, and to mention more about how its used within AmFam (it's had a long time relationship with Costco for instance, which drives its members to use this provider specifically), and I don't forsee deletion here with the AmFam connection. Nathannah • 📮 23:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the sources in the article, the only ones with any pretensions to be independent sigcov are a profile of a a profile of a company exec in Response Magazine, a trad mag and Insurance Journal covering an acquisition. The name is unfortunately generic enough it's rather difficult to search for, even "Connect insurance" is overshaddowed by insurance connecting things and other similarly named platforms. There's an article on the sale of their ex-hq in the Green Bay Press Gazette, the local paper. WP:NCORP generally doesn't consider routine coverage of mergers to be sigcov, and the Response Magazine profile is focused on the person rather than the company, so this doesn't add up to notability. Rusalkii (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The number of names this insurer has had certainly makes for an adventurous search. Luckily, I've turned up all the needed articles including pretty regular SIGCOV in Green Bay. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 22:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaving aside claims for SIGCOV, which references meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND which are needed to meet criteria for establishing notability? I don't think any of them do... HighKing⁺⁺ 21:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - @HighKing: [37], [38]. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 20:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with its parent, American Family Insurance. Seems on the edge notability wise and preferring an WP:ATD, especially per analysis by Rusalkii. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 18:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with American Family Insurance as per WP:ATD and the suggestion above. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. This is a clear No consensus but my instinct is to close this as a Merge. I need a stronger sign that this is what participants want.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

per analysis by Rusalkii does not apply any more and did not apply even then. At the time Rusalkii did the analysis, the article had 8 sources. At the time that JackFromWisconsin wrote that it had 20, as Sammi Brie had noted before. There's a prose history section back to 1979 now, that no longer falsely sources events in 2005 to a 2001 book (which had stood since 2013). Uncle G (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Women's Premier League (Cricket) awards

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 07:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 07:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is WPL version of this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_Premier_League_awards. I have made this article after 3 years of the event which is enough time for the notability of the tournament Rtyggu (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WPL on its own doesn't have WP:SIGCOV for this. Vestrian24Bio 08:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, IPL awards took 10 years to reach notability. Vestrian24Bio 08:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Does not need to be deleted. OCDD (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Arizona and Washington, D.C., hunger strike

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

As was predicted by delete !voters in 2021 and 2022, this event has not had any persistent coverage. I cannot find news coverage since the strike ended; it is not mentioned in articles about other acts of youth protest or otherwise used as a point of comparison. All I find googling it is tons of other hunger strikes that do not have articles, because hunger strikes, while dramatic, are a not-infrequent act of political protest, and usually do not pass WP:GNG, let alone the higher bar of WP:NEVENT. (Morbid but true, usually the thing that makes a hunger strike pass those bars is someone dying, which did not happen in this case.) Perhaps there's room for a single sentence at For the People Act (currently neither that nor John Lewis Voting Rights Act mention this), but not for an article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Arizona, and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chingari (app)

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

Majority of the references are press releases or announcements. No significant coverage. Does not appear to be notable under WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Software. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Routine coverage such as brief mentions, routine announcements, and press releases is all I find. Nothing that would meet WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article appears to be promotional, and the references are mostly press announcements. Sethi752 (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are not more than simple passing mentions and press releases. Above all they are not independent. Go with Nomination. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that there are no sources to create notability for the article. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't all press releases, but indeed almost all. And the 1 that isn't isn't about this subject specifically. A quick search for sources turns up the same kind of sourcing as that one: being about the TikTok ban and giving a list of things that were created to fill the void, rather than discussing this one specifically. Uncle G (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keat Hwa Centennial Celebrations

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

Article is written with WP:PROMO style and does not meet notability since it is a local school anniversary event. The article also contains the same contents in the main article section of the event. Syn73 (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Ong Kai Jin since he challenged the previous PROD. Syn73 (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Schools, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biswatma Nayak

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

This article provides a more comprehensive discussion of an application he developed. The majority of the references relate to the Chingari (app), which similarly appears to be a non-notable application. Nonetheless, the references fail to meet WP:RS criteria to validate WP:GNG. Bakhtar40 (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Business, India, and Odisha. Bakhtar40 (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Few of the links are non functional. Few are primary. No significant coverage about subject in independent source. It appears to be more of a promotional stuff. Rahmatula786 (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one link that looked like a WP:RS was dead. Fails WP:GNG Variety312 (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of calypsos with sociopolitical influences

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

First, I want to aknowledge the effort of LordGriot (then Loguenn) for this huge list article.

However, as a list, I don't see it's viability. It's, as far as I can tell, an original attempt at organizing every callipso song into various arbitrary topics like "Aspiration", "Health" and "Culture - Other". Referencing is... really not great.

I've tried to look for other similar lists and AFAICT this is the only attempt at organizing all the songs of genre into "topics".

So for these reasons, I recommend deletion, though the source code should be made available upon request to anyone that would like to copy that on something like a Callypso Wiki or some such. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SwiftOnSecurity

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

i don't think this meets the notability requirements..? the only accomplishments here are two sentences mentioning they tweeted about a vulnerability. - avxktty ^(talk) 03:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a shocking number of reliable secondary sources about this account, including several books with more than a passing mention. AFAIK, notability does not necessarily imply a need for accomplishments so much as significant coverage in RS. Anerdw (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i believe this is generally only true when the event is extremely notable, or are involved with multiple events..? (WP:SINGLEEVENT) - avxktty ^(talk) 11:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would argue that finding a CVE fulfils the following requirement 'The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field' WP:ANYBIO. Also WP:OBSCURE

Swift on Security is widely regarded as an important figure and widely cited by peers WP:AUTHOR as an expert to follow. See,

- https://www.troyhunt.com/troys-ultimate-list-of-security-links/

- https://www.perimeter81.com/blog/news/top-10-security-experts-you-should-be-following-in-2020

- https://www.rapid7.com/globalassets/_pdfs/whitepaperguide/rapid7-komand-defining-your-career-cybersecurity-professional-whitepaper.pdf

As per Anerdw's previous vote, there are a number of reliable sources quoted in the references for this page, further establishing notability. SallyRenee (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above. Furthermore, being a reasonably central figure in the public discourse on infosec is an accomplishment in itself. /Julle (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve. The subject is definitely notable, albeit largely within the security field. Espatie (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Bangladesh alleged judicial coup attempt

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

This article was created by a sock with a history of copyvio and what is either original research or POV pushing. The g5 tag was declined, resulting in a very long ANI thread discussing whether Wikipedians should AGF about their creations, and due to concerns expressed by many editors that their creations, like this one, might be valuable. While that may seem true at first glance, furhter inspection quickly reveals this article to be just a whole lot of WP:OR talking about a coup or potential that sources do not claim happened, or even discuss in any detail further than quoting one of the student leaders as a background to explain why the students are protesting.

This article's first problem is the title - it says "alleged" coup, and then goes on to refer to the existence of a coup as fact in the lead, using plenty of weasel words to make this incongruence seem less obvious.

The article's next problem is that, out of its 34 sources, only 8 include a statement quoting or referencing somebody accusing the justices of a coup. Less than half are about the Bangladesh judiciary. Of course, that didn't stop the article creator from making it seem like these references were about the alleged coup - there are numerous instances in this article where statements are cited to articles completely unrelated to that statement. There's even a fair few examples of statements about events cited to articles published before those events even happened.

If there is any notability to an alleged coup, which I doubt, this article does not demonstrate it. A large amount of text, including the bits that are actually supported by their citations, is already duplicated at Aftermath of July Revolution (Bangladesh). WP:TNT. Any people looking to WP:HEY this should go and put their efforts into writing a new article about the student-led protests calling for the old judiciary to resign.

Caption

Source

Has a statement where one person accuses the justices of a coup

About student protests about the judiciary

Notes

"Bangladesh: Chief Justice resigns after fresh protests erupt at Supreme Court over 'judiciary coup'". India TV. 10 August 2024. Retrieved 21 September 2024.

Specifically attributes claims of a coup to student protest leaders, does use the words themselves even in the headline. Our article uses this to justify calling the events "The 2024 Bangladesh judicial coup attempt"

Chaudhury, Dipanjan Roy (11 August 2024). "Bangladesh CJI Obaidul Hassan resigns after protesters' ultimatum". The Economic Times.

Article says "The protesting students called the full court meeting a judicial coup and besieged the High Court" Our article uses this to justify calling the events "The 2024 Bangladesh judicial coup attempt"

"Bangladesh top judge steps down following student protests". EFE. 10 August 2024.

Article says "The students accused Justice Hassan of attempting a judicial coup to restore power to Hasina". Our article uses this to justify calling the events "The 2024 Bangladesh judicial coup attempt"

"Bangladesh crisis: Why protesting students forced Chief Just". The Times of India. 10 August 2024.

Article says: "Judiciary coup? [...] However, the students percieved this as a judiciary coup and announced their intentions to besiege the High Court premises". Our article uses this to justify calling the events "The 2024 Bangladesh judicial coup attempt"

"বিচারপতিরা জুডিশিয়াল ক্যু করতে চেয়েছিলেন : এলডিপি মহাসচিব". Daily Kalbela (in Bengali). 12 August 2024.

Reprints Redwan Ahmed calling the events a coup, was used to back up a statement saying that the judiciary might have been trying to restore power to Hasina.

"Bangladesh chief justice agrees to resign amid new student protests". Aljazeera. 10 August 2024.

Article says "“They viewed this as a judicial coup in the making, so they quickly gathered at the Supreme Court and demanded that he immediately resign,” Chowdhury said." which actually can be used to support what it's cited to.

"Anti-Discrimination Student Movement calls for High Court siege". Dhaka Tribune. 10 August 2024. Retrieved 13 October 2024.

"judicial queue"

Actually backs up the text it cites.

"'ষড়যন্ত্র ফাঁস', জুডিশিয়াল ক্যু বানচাল করলো ছাত্ররা". The Daily Ittefaq (in Bengali). 11 August 2024.

"জুডিশিয়াল ক্যু'র ষড়যন্ত্র ফাঁস': শিক্ষার্থীদের বিক্ষোভে বানচাল". Bangla Vision (in Bengali). 11 August 2024. Retrieved 9 September 2024.

Same source article reprinted on multiple websites, no author given other than some variation of "desk". Mostly appears to be reprinting a student leader's Facebook post.

"Bangladesh Chief Justice & 5 top judges resign amid demand for restructuring of judiciary". The Telegraph India. 10 August 2024.

Specifically used in lead to justify use of word "coup", despite the article not using it.

"Bangladesh's chief justice resigns under pressure as Yunus-led interim government starts working". AP News. 12 August 2024.

Article is about the chief justice's resignation, fears that he might be loyal to Hasina, and human rights abuses by Hasina's government, but it used to support a claim that "The coup attempt centred around the Supreme Court of Bangladesh in Dhaka, where several judges, led by Chief Justice Obaidul Hassan, were accused of planning a legal manoeuvre to challenge the legitimacy of the interim government"

"Full court meeting of SC called off, students demand resignation of CJ, other justices". The Business Standard. 10 August 2024.

Mentions the student leaders commenting about a conspiracy, contains absolutely no mention of the meeting being potentially "irregular and unconstitutional" Ahmed or anybody else. Also, used to back up a statement expressed by Ahmed. Ahmed is not mentioned in the article.

"প্রধান বিচারপতির পদত্যাগের দাবিতে সুপ্রিম কোর্ট প্রাঙ্গণে সাড়ে ৩ ঘণ্টা বিক্ষোভ". Prothom Alo (in Bengali). 10 August 2024.

Is exclusively about the student protests and resignation, but used to back up statements about "lawyers, and civil society members" protesting.

"প্রধান বিচারপতিসহ আপিল বিভাগের ৬ বিচারপতির পদত্যাগ". banikbarta.net (in Bengali). 11 August 2024.

Article is about six high-ranking judges who resigned due to the protests, mentions nothing about "loyalty", "connections to the previous regime", or judges from "Chattogram, Khulna, and Sylhet", despite being used to source all those statements.

"CJ, 5 other SC judges resign". The Daily Star (Bangladesh). 11 August 2024.

Article is about the same six-high ranking judges who resigned due to the protests, but it used to cite the statement "twelve judges resigned or were removed as part of the efforts to restore confidence in the judiciary and cleanse it of perceived biases".

"Bangladesh swears in new chief justice as old guard quit". France 24. 11 August 2024.

This video is about protests all over the country concerning human rights issues, forced disappearances, and more. The Headline says that they got a new chief justice, the reporter makes one comment about students protesting against the judiciary, and the paragraph below says that Syed Refaat Ahmed was made the new chief justice. It does not say anything about an "independent judicial commission", the statement in the article that it's used to support.

"ক্যুর চেষ্টা হলে ভয়াবহ পরিণতি হবে : আসিফ মাহমুদ". Kaler Kantho (in Bengali). 26 August 2024.

Contains an accusation that the Bangladesh Ansar, Bangladesh's paramilitary force, were attempting a coup. Our article uses this to justify calling the events "The 2024 Bangladesh judicial coup attempt".

"It was a revolution in Bangladesh, and we should recognise it as such: Shivshankar Menon". The Business Standard. 15 August 2024.

"জুলাই বিপ্লবের শহীদদের স্মরণ". Kaler Kantho (in Bengali). 17 August 2024.

"Will Yunus-led interim government bring Bangladesh out of its 'dark era'?". Aljazeera. 9 August 2024.

Predates the event, specifically used to cite information about the event.. that hadn't happened yet.

"Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina has resigned and left the country, media reports say". South China Morning Post. 5 August 2024.

Predates the event, specifically used to cite information about the event

"Bangladesh crisis highlights: Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus takes oath as the head of Bangladesh's interim government". The Hindu. 2024-08-08. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2024-09-03.

Predates the event

"Chief Advisor Yunus briefs on action plans, urges patience to overcome challenges". bdnews24.com. 25 August 2024.

Specifically used to cite information about a judiciary coup and protests. Article mentions neither.

"Chief Justice adjourns full court meeting". Dhaka Tribune. 10 August 2024.

"Chief justice's full court meeting postponed". The Daily Observer. 10 August 2024.

"Bangladesh ex-PM Sheikh Hasina did not officially resign from her post before fleeing, says her son". India TV. 10 August 2024.

Specifically used to cite information about the protests/coup

"Joy says his mother didn't resign, Hasina says otherwise". The Business Standard. 11 August 2024.

Specifically used to cite information about the protests/coup

"চট্টগ্রামের নতুন জেলা ও দায়রা জজ আসাদুজ্জামান খান". Banglanews24.com (in Bengali). 30 August 2024.

About the new Chittagong Metropolitan Sessions Judge, but is used to support a statement about justices in districts "such as Chattogram, Khulna, Rajshahi, and Sylhet".

"নিম্ন আদালতের ৮১ বিচারককে বদলি". khulnagazette.com (in Bengali). 30 August 2024.

Google translate has trouble with this one

"Bangladesh's interim govt plans national elections soon after reforms". China Daily. 19 August 2024.

Does not support the timeframe claimed in the Wiki article

"Bangladesh interim government to seek reforms before an election, adviser says". NHK World-Japan. 18 August 2024. Archived from the original on 2024-09-04.

Does not support the material it cites

"Chief adviser seeks UNDP's support for reforms". UNDP. 29 August 2024.

"EU seeks to engage with Yunus-led interim government". The Daily Observer. 9 August 2024.

"UN, EU, China welcome Yunus-led interim government in Bangladesh". New Age. 9 August 2024.

Does not support the material it cites

TL;DR: POV-pushing sock creates an article that looks okay, but is about a topic that reliable sources haven't discussed and therefore falls apart the moment you look at the sources. Article doesn't appear notable, G5 was declined, AFD it is. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 03:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Bangladesh. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 03:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without salting, although if there are very few sources then expanding Yunus ministry is likely a more fruitful editing task than trying to figure out how to make this article work. CMD (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources with which to rewrite the article. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the implication. They could easily be used on the Yunis ministry article? It's less than 1000 words. CMD (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I put an ”in use” template on the judicial coup article and started trimming it before going to bed last night. This morning, I was surprised to see it taken to AfD. If important, notable but suspicious articles like this are to be deleted, AfD is the better route. Still, I am chagrined that I wasted 2 hours researching this with a template on it. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or better yet speedy delete, under CSD#G5. As I write this the blocked sock is still the author of >95% of the content on the page, and as GLL has demonstrated, much of the content they added is rife with basic content policy violations. No objections to recreation, but it needs to be genuine recreation. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lianna Rebolledo

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

PROD'd this back in 2023, more citations were added and tag was removed but I don't think they're reliable/independent enough to give her notability. GraziePrego (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Health and fitness, Latin America, and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Sarah Flaum

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

Article has sources but not a single one treats the subject other than passing mentions of her as a member of a cast. A further search reveals only primary sources and a raft of social media entries. Fails both points of WP:NACTOR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This subject fails WP:GNG. A search for citations only reveals only social media pages and blogs. desmay (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/06/25/the-tale-a-wrenching-and-wise-story-about-sexual-abuse allows to verify the role/contribution to a notable production is significant; as do https://filmthreat.com/reviews/amfad-all-my-friends-are-dead/ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/arts/television/the-tale-hbo-review.html

Also see https://msmagazine.com/2022/05/24/abortion-add-to-cart-documentary-film-abortion-pills/ -Mushy Yank. 18:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional citations:

https://movieweb.com/lets-scare-julie-review/

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/jade-pettyjohn-jojo-siwa-all-my-friends-are-dead-1235495409/

https://movieweb.com/amfad-all-my-friends-are-dead-marcus-dunstan-horror-movie/

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/tale-review-1076440/

https://www.mmm-online.com/home/channel/documentary-explores-post-roe-v-wade-abortion-access/

https://variety.com/2018/film/reviews/the-tale-review-laura-dern-1202670927/ jaguar (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with 2-3 significant roles in notable productions; also probably meets WP:CREATIVE for her work on AMFAD. -Mushy Yank. 15:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Fails both points of WP:NACTOR." according to the nominator? What points? How does she fail them if her roles are significant and the productions, notable? -Mushy Yank. 15:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on the info already in the article, she meets WP:NACTOR / WP:CREATIVE. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Diar

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP1E. Previous AfD from 2014 only considered mentions in news coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and United States of America. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article is written just, disastrously, but there are some non-news sources. It may however need to be "eventified" or shifted scope. not sure, because the notability seems to be mixed between the crime, her conviction, and elements of her as a person which is why this case is notable, so I think it may be the best choice to write it as a biography. However I would not object to someone nuking most of this page because we should not be using FindLaw on a BLP!!

There are several pages of discussion on her using her as a case study in the academic book The Fairer Death: Executing Women in Ohio, mentions in Women and Capital Punishment in the United States a brief mention in [39], probably more PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some in this law book as well [40] though not sure how useful that is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Patriot Party

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

Fails WP:ORG. Defunct provincial party that achieved insignificant results in the elections it contested, never garnering more than a hundredth of a percent of the popular vote or half a percent in any riding. A search through Google and provincial archives returned no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The news sources given are routine coverage that neither focus on the party nor describe it in detail. All the other sources are standard governmental reports that do not establish the party's notability. Yue🌙 01:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (National Post, Vancouver Sun, Vernon Morning Star, Penticton Western News). The article is not "abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion" as the party is long defunct. I started the article, but have no connection to the party or its organizers, and have never lived in British Columbia. Ground Zero | t 01:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the automated notice template described the article as "abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion", but certainly that is not the argument I am making. I contend that the coverage in those papers is minor and not in-depth, a comparison being the creation of articles for every failed candidate mentioned in those same articles. Yue🌙 18:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 01:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per nom. Routine mentions of a party contesting an election are not in-depth, substantive coverage. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evrim Ağacı

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. The most I could find is receiving a grant from the European Society for Evolutionary Biology and some blog posts. ^Falling_Gravity 03:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Turkey. ^Falling_Gravity 03:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Friedman

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

I found this article that is directly about him (but it is more of an interview). Other than that, coverage is mainly based on mentions or is directly about Scribd, a company he co-founded. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Computing, Internet, California, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Scribd. I agree there's no established notability outside of that, and the article itself is full of refbombing and casual namedrops. Ravenswing 17:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tikhon Bernstam

(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) 02:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Internet, California, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Bourret

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

I can find zero google news results. Zip. Google Search results give a paragraph, max, of coverage. Jay Cubby 02:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Badminton. Jay Cubby 02:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Radio Canada piece from 2020, on his role as school sports director during COVID. This is possibly the same itw. here an article on him from 2004 (non-Olympic). Mentions from the 2004 Sydney Olympics here, here, here. Some non-independent news on his role in Badminton Canada here, here. Mentioned here from a 2002 competition. Apparently the General Director of Sports Montreal, Inc. ([41]). Quoted here in news piece from 2024. --Soman (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plainfield Riding and Driving Club

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

I can find no discussion in depth on this subject. All I can find is photographs and passing mentions in the newspaper, such as "50 years ago today it began having horse shows," and "XXXX won YYYY trophy." I can't even find articles about its organization or dissolution. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, Horse racing, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Plainfield Horse Show was apparently a prominent event of its time, run by the club, and had its own show grounds. Numerous sources exist, however they are prior to the internet. According to WP:NPOSSIBLE, it is only necessary to show that sources exist, though it is not necessary to have cited them in the article. My wiki-work in the area of carriages and driving has enabled me to find enough sources on this topic to indicate that this subject passes standards for notability.
There are 15 search results in the New York Times archives ranging from 1907 to 1935 for "Plainfield Horse Show".^[1] Almay has numerous historical photos,^[2]^[3] most of which have been copied to WikiCommons. The articles and photos indicate several high society individuals attended as spectators and competed in the shows. Since driving clubs limited their memberships to worthy well-connected individuals, and driving is/was an expensive pastime, I would expect that society pages would be covering this annual horse show.
This 1906 issue of Bit & Spur^[4] has numerous references to Plainfield (the club, the grounds, and the show) throughout the issue, and on page 129 covers the first day of the show, names the class winners, and mentions there will be more detailed coverage to follow in their next issue. There are three pages of coverage in a Bit & Spur 1913 issue.^[5] The content in these two issues indicate to me that this periodical probably extensively covered this horse show for many years.
Another periodical, The Carriage Monthly also covered the Plainfield shows.^[6] At this point, having satisfied myself that this is a notable topic, I stopped searching for more sources. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Search results for "Plainfield Horse Show"". New York Times.
^ "Search for 'Plainfield Riding and Driving Club'". Almay.
^ "Search for 'Plainfield Horse Show'". Almay.
^ "Plainfield : The First Day". Bit & Spur. II (11). The Bit & Spur Publishing Company: 129. January 1906.
^ "At Picturesque Plainfield". Bit & Spur. XII (1): 18–19, 56. January 1913. (page 56) ...which in point of daily and also total attendance, broke every record for the past ten years, clearly indicating that in New Jersey, as in other sections, there is a decided increase in horse interest, and all that pertains to the horse ... The management is to be warmly congratulated.
^ "Dates of Prominent Horse Shows". The Carriage Monthly. Philadelphia: Ware Bros. Company. May 1912. pp. 45, 49. Following are the date of the principal horse shows scheduled for the remainder of the year. The list includes the more prominent shows of this country and Canada: ... Plainfield, N. J., June 6th-8th. (page 49) Both championships in the harness class went to J. W. Harriman's entries. (page 45)

Pilling's Cascade

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

This seems to have been photographed on a geographic survey in the 19th century. Beyond these photos, I can find no mention of it, what to speak of a discussion in depth. Even the single source on the page only carries a captioned photo of it and no discussion whatever. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGEO. GBooks has lots of 19th century books and magazines with photos/illustrations, but no description. Nothing from recent years was found. Was the waterfall renamed? WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The whole thing was renamed — or, rather, the names were mixed up. There was a mining town on Pine Creek named Bullion City in the 1870s, west of where Marysvale, Utah still remains; but Bullion City is gone, and it left behind it a confusion about whether the name is "Bullion" or "Pine". (Bullion City has been entirely overlooked by Wikipedia, even though it was once the Piute County county seat. You can see what wrong name it has been ludicrously redlinked as in that article, foolishly sourced to Google Maps.) The only named waterfalls on Pine Creek that I can find are Bullion Falls, documented by the Forest Service. In the old books, "Pilling's" are the lower falls and "Mary's Veil" the upper on Pine Creek, and I cannot find what those are called, if anything at all, today. It's all Fishlake National Forest now. Uncle G (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Even if the falls are mentioned in the old books, is there any discussion that would meet the standards of WP:NGEO? The old photographs are beautiful but they alone don't merit an article on the falls. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wendelin Küpers

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

The subject appears not to meet any of the notabilty criteria laid down in WP:NACADEMIC, and no evidence is offered of him meeting WP:GNG. The only source cited with a working link is to Küpers page at the Karlshochschule International University, a small non-profit private foundation university, where he is currently a professor. The article is simply a resume, created by the article subject himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, and Social science. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as does not meet WP:NACADEMIC under any criteria, and no evidence of any notability under WP:ANYBIO. No independent reliable secondary sources discussing the subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. No SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. The article reads like a CV, with routine academic roles and unverified publication lists (WP:NOTCV). No evidence of notability beyond basic faculty listings or guest editorial work. HerBauhaus (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Playscape

AfDs for this article:

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

Could redirect to Playground —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 01:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 01:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a different concept than a playground. No other rationale for deletion given. SportingFlyer T·C 10:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see an actual rationale for deleting the article. It seems like the nominator wants to merge the article to Playground, but that is not an AfD matter. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait... So merge has a different board, and not AfD -> Redirect creation -> merge? —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 05:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The process for merging (where no content would be deleted) is different than AfD, where you are actively trying to delete a page (though sometimes it gets redirected or merged). That being said I would oppose a merge as well. SportingFlyer T·C 06:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that promotional tone runs way too deep as well... —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 07:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Karaoke King

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

Unreferenced film article. No wikilinked actors or director. Not clear this meets WP:GNG or WP:NFILM.4meter4 (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing at all found about this film... Even the Imdb page isn't much. I don't think this film is notable, the lack of sourcing isn't helping. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Gitomer

AfDs for this article:

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

I am not sure if he is notable. Most of sources seem to be either primary or only tangentially related to him. I am unsure whether he meets WP:CREATIVE; points 3 and 4 are relevant. I am not sure if the attention he got was critical and whether his work has been covered in enough periodical articles. (I see [42], but not much more.) Even if The Little Red Book of Selling had made him notable, he would seem to be a bit too BLP1E-ish, as the rest of the coverage is more-or-less trivial or primary. Janhrach (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Business, United States of America, and Florida. Janhrach (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see plenty of good sources. I remember the incident that lead to his being banned from the airline, so BLP1E doesn't apply. There are issues with the article, but they can be resolved through ordinary editing. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: Do you think he meets points 3 or 4 of WP:CREATIVE? I did not express that well, but WP:CREATIVE was intended to be the main point of my nom. I am willing to withdraw this nom if there is a convincing argument that he does. Janhrach (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that he meets factor #3 as having written several related books. Bearian (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but it also says that:

In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);

I don't see multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, but I haven't really done a thorough search. Like I have written, I have found [43], but the other articles I have found were blogs (or similar), not articles from periodicals. Janhrach (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (may return with !vote) This is a typical promotional article for someone whose main skill is promoting. He writes those books a friend of mine calls "business porn": which promise great wealth not unlike that of megachurch leaders. I removed some irrelevant promotional statements, but there are undoubtedly more. I am not sure that the speaking awards (e.g. "Certified Speaking Professional (CSP) Award") are of value because the organization appears to be a speakers' bureau. Two of the book awards (IPPY) are indeed awards but he is among other winners, in one case one of 66. A fairly snide article in Time magazine was used for one "cute" quote but ignored 4 paragraphs of negative review of his work. (I fixed some of that.) The reviews by Jack Covert seem to be in a personal blog, albeit a pretty ambitious one. His books have sold many copies, and I can see some presence in library collections. I confess that I have little regard for this category of output, along with all of the self-help books. I just thought I should be honest about my prejudice. Lamona (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has had best-selling books although I do not find the two NY Times pages that are listed here. I do find a 2003 NYT best seller list for "paperback advice" books. It seems odd that an older list turns up in a search on his name but the two newer ones listed here do not. I cannot find anything that is independent to fill in his bio, other than being banned by an airline for bad behavior. The link to 800ceoread is a blog post on a book sales site. As I note above the various positive quotes were cherry-picked. Given the degree of PROMO and the lack of independent sources I tend to have doubts about the sources on the article that I cannot find. Lamona (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only see various promotional interviews [44], that link is the best, but it's still not helpful as a Forbes contributor piece. Gbooks and Gscholar are only copies of his various books. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Township, Shelby County, Iowa

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

Lincoln Township does not meet even WP:GNG Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has White 1915, p. 218 in one county history and Dunbar 1889, p. 237 in the other, both specifically on the township, as well as other information dotted throughout those. Then there are things like the Iowa Secretary of State publishing population and housing statistics for Iowa broken down by township. Uncle G (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Secretary of State information on statistics isn't in-depth discussion of the townships and doesn't make them notable, and clicking those links brings me back to this page. The link text doesn't even give enough information for a person to try to track them down to see the coverage. Why not add them to the pages as sources, so the sources can justify the pages' existence? That would cost about the same amount of effort as having posted here but the benefit would be greater... Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, not notable per the specific guidance at WP:NTOWN: "…if the class of division is not notable (e.g. townships in certain US states) its members are not notable either, even though technically recognized in law." I₂Overcome ^talk 19:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oona Wikiwalker There are 1,599 townships in Iowa and almost all of them have articles; from a quick sampling it appears that most of them are stubs that may also fail WP:NTOWN. I suggest you withdraw these five nominations and nominate the lot of them if you still think they should be deleted. See WP:BUNDLE for instructions, but you would probably still have to individually tag several hundred pages. The AutoWikiBrowser would make that less tedious, but you have to request permission to use it if you haven’t already. For these five individually, Strong Keep. I₂Overcome ^talk 20:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per grounds of I2Overcome [ETA: but Mangoe makes goods points below so i feel less strident now.] Structurally speaking we have thousands of township articles as the primary next level subdivision of United States counties, judging each individually would create an absolute incoherent mess.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to list of townships in Shelby County, Iowa and consider as a proxy for the many other Iowa townships. Look, every time we have to consider a whole class of geographical articles like this, if we do a group no0mination someone will demand they be split up, and if only one or a few are nominated, the opposite ploy is made. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY surely applies here, and if we go through a few of these and determine for each that they shouldn't have individual articles (which is how we handled it in NC), we can come back and consider the rest as a group. Anyway, searching produces almost nothing but census data and some old maps. I did find county supervisors minutes listing election results for township clerk positions (with tiny numbers in most cases), so the things are not completely defunct, but for instance I didn't find a web page for this township or anything else that even indicates what it does. My impression is that they are relatively minor administrative subdivisions, and I think a table and map in the county article which includes some reasonable set of the census data is a better presentation. I would not oppose outright deletion either given that there is so little information we appear to be able to give for each one. If someone can come up with other information of greater substance, OK, but the procedurally-based responses above don't address content and really almost count as an admission that none of these articles ought to be retained on their own merits. Mangoe (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- All fair points; really i wonder if the creator would have objected to this county's townships if they all had just been redirected. I happened to dig up some historical census information for this township (which is harder than one might think, each decennial census is a mess to dig around in massive PDFs and defunct websites), and concluded there is really nothing to be known of value about this township except that it exists.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not be opposed to this. However, I still think it makes the most sense to only consider these articles together, perhaps one county per nomination so there are not hundreds at once. For example, there are 16 townships in Shelby County, and I see no reason why anyone would object to them being nominated together. I₂Overcome ^talk 05:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Psst! I already pointed out two such sources at the very start of this discussion. We all know where we expect to find the county histories, at this point after doing this for so many years. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I, for one, have only been doing this for a few months, so I have no idea where to find the county histories. Unfortunately, those two last names and publication years are not much help. Moreover, all five townships that were nominated here are in one county, so I'm not sure why you seem to be referring to histories of more than one county. There are townships of the same names in several other Iowa counties (which further suggests they are not notable). I also have to question whether obscure works from over 100 years ago plus census data are enough to establish notability. I₂Overcome ^talk 05:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where do you think that you will find two county histories for Shelby County, Iowa, cited in Wikipedia? What's an obvious place? ☺ Raw census data is how some of our place articles started out, thanks to Rambot (talk · contribs). It's possible with many places to augment that with history, demographics, physical geography, political geography, and so forth. It's even better the other way around, where the census data are a supplement rather than the primary thing. It's also possible to connect the histories of Lincoln and Westphalia Townships using the Iowa Journal of History and Politics. Uncle G (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Polk Township, Shelby County, Iowa

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

Polk Township, Shelby County, Iowa does not even meet WP:GNG Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has White 1915, p. 122 in one county history and Dunbar 1889, p. 237 in the other, both specifically on the township, as well as other information dotted throughout those. Then there are things like the Iowa Secretary of State publishing population and housing statistics for Iowa broken down by township. Uncle G (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Secretary of State information on statistics isn't in-depth discussion of the townships and doesn't make them notable, and clicking those links brings me back to this page. The link text doesn't even give enough information for a person to try to track them down to see the coverage. Why not add them to the pages as sources, so the sources can justify the pages' existence? That would cost about the same amount of effort as having posted here but the benefit would be greater.. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, not notable per the specific guidance at WP:NTOWN: "…if the class of division is not notable (e.g. townships in certain US states) its members are not notable either, even though technically recognized in law." I₂Overcome ^talk 19:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oona Wikiwalker There are 1,599 townships in Iowa and almost all of them have articles; from a quick sampling it appears that most of them are stubs that may also fail WP:NTOWN. I suggest you withdraw these five nominations and nominate the lot of them if you still think they should be deleted. See WP:BUNDLE for instructions, but you would probably still have to individually tag several hundred pages. The AutoWikiBrowser would make that less tedious, but you have to request permission to use it if you haven’t already. For these five individually, Strong Keep. I₂Overcome ^talk 20:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per grounds of I2Overcome. Structurally speaking we have thousands of township articles as the primary next level subdivision of United States counties, judging each individually would create an absolute incoherent mess.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*redirect to list of townships in Shelby County, Iowa or maybe delete outright. I'm not rehashing the group nom discussion again so we can get right on to this place's notability. And again, there's nothing but census and maps, except for a wildlife area which I'm not sure what level it's administered at. Google didn't even pull up the 2002 election results, in which three people voted for the clerk position; in fact the county website doesn't mention the townships at all, but then again it doesn't appear to have been updated since some time in 2023. I'm seeing a WP:GNG fail here and the history of results for these minor subdivisions has not been to grant them blanket immunity from deletion. Mangoe (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- And the two county histories pointed to right at the beginning of this discussion. Don't overlook them. Uncle G (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Township, Shelby County, Iowa

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

Shelby Township, Shelby County, Iowa does not even meet WP:GNG Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has White 1915, pp. 216–217 in one county history and Dunbar 1889, pp. 237–238 in the other, both specifically on the township, as well as other information dotted throughout those. Then there are things like the Iowa Secretary of State publishing population and housing statistics for Iowa broken down by township. Uncle G (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Secretary of State information on statistics isn't in-depth discussion of the townships and doesn't make them notable, and clicking those links brings me back to this page. The link text doesn't even give enough information for a person to try to track them down to see the coverage. Why not add them to the pages as sources, so the sources can justify the pages' existence? That would cost about the same amount of effort as having posted here but the benefit would be greater.. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, not notable per the specific guidance at WP:NTOWN: "…if the class of division is not notable (e.g. townships in certain US states) its members are not notable either, even though technically recognized in law." I₂Overcome ^talk 19:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oona Wikiwalker There are 1,599 townships in Iowa and almost all of them have articles; from a quick sampling it appears that most of them are stubs that may also fail WP:NTOWN. I suggest you withdraw these five nominations and nominate the lot of them if you still think they should be deleted. See WP:BUNDLE for instructions, but you would probably still have to individually tag several hundred pages. The AutoWikiBrowser would make that less tedious, but you have to request permission to use it if you haven’t already. For these five individually, Strong Keep. I₂Overcome ^talk 20:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then how do you suggest getting townships where very few people live, which have nothing of note in their history, out of the backlog of places for which geographic coordinates have been requested? There's no way to note why they're in the backlog or whether or not they're worthy of note. Alternatively, where do you suggest the coordinates should point? Whose property or home? Geographic center? Last UFO sighting? (I'm making these jokes as someone who comes from one of these places where all you have to talk to is the grass and sky.) Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - It seems quite clear that you have not looked at the county histories to know what is in them, even though I explicitly pointed them out with the precise page numbers of the more concentrated stuff therein, especially as I pointed to the different things for each individual township and you are just in contrast copy-pasting generic comments. Uncle G (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per grounds of I2Overcome. Structurally speaking we have thousands of township articles as the primary next level subdivision of United States counties, judging each individually would create an absolute incoherent mess.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*redirect to list of townships in Shelby County, Iowa or maybe delete outright. I'm not rehashing the group nom discussion again so we can get right on to this place's notability. In the 2002 election results, 27 people voted for the clerk position. It's obviously next to impossible to do a good search for this place, but I'm seeing a WP:GNG fail here and the history of results for these minor subdivisions has not been to grant them blanket immunity from deletion. Mangoe (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- I gave two of the county histories right at the beginning of this discussion, with the precise page numbers for the more concentrated stuff, which saves on the searching considerably. You and I both know where the county histories will be found, having done this for years. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Union Township, Shelby County, Iowa

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

Union Township, Shelby County, Iowa does not even meet WP:GNG Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has White 1915, p. 218 in one county history and Dunbar 1889, p. 238 in the other, both specifically on the township, as well as other information dotted throughout those. Then there are things like the Iowa Secretary of State publishing population and housing statistics for Iowa broken down by township. Uncle G (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Secretary of State information on statistics isn't in-depth discussion of the townships and doesn't make them notable, and clicking those links brings me back to this page. The link text doesn't even give enough information for a person to try to track them down to see the coverage. Why not add them to the pages as sources, so the sources can justify the pages' existence? That would cost about the same amount of effort as having posted here but the benefit would be greater.. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, not notable per the specific guidance at WP:NTOWN: "…if the class of division is not notable (e.g. townships in certain US states) its members are not notable either, even though technically recognized in law." I₂Overcome ^talk 19:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oona Wikiwalker There are 1,599 townships in Iowa and almost all of them have articles; from a quick sampling it appears that most of them are stubs that may also fail WP:NTOWN. I suggest you withdraw these five nominations and nominate the lot of them if you still think they should be deleted. See WP:BUNDLE for instructions, but you would probably still have to individually tag several hundred pages. The AutoWikiBrowser would make that less tedious, but you have to request permission to use it if you haven’t already. For these five individually, Strong Keep. I₂Overcome ^talk 20:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per grounds of I2Overcome. Structurally speaking we have thousands of township articles as the primary next level subdivision of United States counties, judging each individually would create an absolute incoherent mess.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Then how do you suggest getting townships where very few people live, which have nothing of note in their history, out of the backlog of places for which geographic coordinates have been requested? There's no way to note why they're in the backlog or whether or not they're worthy of note. Alternatively, where do you suggest the coordinates should point? Whose property or home? Geographic center? Last UFO sighting? (I'm making these jokes as someone who comes from one of these places where all you have to talk to is the grass and sky.) Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems quite clear that you have not looked at the county histories to know what is in them, even though I explicitly pointed them out with the precise page numbers of the more concentrated stuff therein. Uncle G (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*redirect to list of townships in Shelby County, Iowa or maybe delete outright. I'm not rehashing the group nom discussion again so we can get right on to this place's notability. As usual, there's virtually nothing but census and maps; I did come across a township budget which indicates they apparently run a fire station and a cemetery (the latter seems to be a constant across these), so there's that, but the amounts involved are pretty small. I'm seeing a WP:GNG fail here and the history of results for these minor subdivisions has not been to grant them blanket immunity from deletion. Mangoe (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- You didn't spot that I gave two of the county histories right at the beginning of this discussion, with the precise page numbers? Uncle G (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Westphalia Township, Shelby County, Iowa

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

Westphalia Township, Shelby County, Iowa does not even meet WP:GNG Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has White 1915, pp. 114–115 in one county history (reaching back to when it was known as Sumner Township) and Dunbar 1889, p. 238 in the other, both specifically on the township, as well as other information dotted throughout those. Then there are things like the Iowa Secretary of State publishing population and housing statistics for Iowa broken down by township. Uncle G (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Secretary of State information on statistics isn't in-depth discussion of the townships and doesn't make them notable, and clicking those links brings me back to this page. The link text doesn't even give enough information for a person to try to track them down to see the coverage. Why not add them to the pages as sources, so the sources can justify the pages' existence? That would cost about the same amount of effort as having posted here but the benefit would be greater.. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, not notable per the specific guidance at WP:NTOWN: "…if the class of division is not notable (e.g. townships in certain US states) its members are not notable either, even though technically recognized in law." I₂Overcome ^talk 19:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oona Wikiwalker There are 1,599 townships in Iowa and almost all of them have articles; from a quick sampling it appears that most of them are stubs that may also fail WP:NTOWN. I suggest you withdraw these five nominations and nominate the lot of them if you still think they should be deleted. See WP:BUNDLE for instructions, but you would probably still have to individually tag several hundred pages. The AutoWikiBrowser would make that less tedious, but you have to request permission to use it if you haven’t already. For these five individually, Strong Keep. I₂Overcome ^talk 20:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per grounds of I2Overcome. Structurally speaking we have thousands of township articles as the primary next level subdivision of United States counties, judging each individually would create an absolute incoherent mess.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to list of townships in Shelby County, Iowa or maybe delete outright. I'm not rehashing the group nom discussion again so we can get right on to this place's notability. I did a little better here: besides the usual census and maps,.I found one of those turn-of-the-century chatty county histories which actually gives a date for the founding of the township. Other than that it's scarcely noted; even the town which sits in it doesn't get a lot. I'm seeing a WP:GNG fail here and the history of results for these minor subdivisions has not been to grant them blanket immunity from deletion. Mangoe (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't spot that I gave two of them right at the beginning of this discussion, with the precise page numbers? You could have gone straight to them. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity Model of British Ancestry

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

There is no such thing as the "Continuity Model of British Ancestry", and the old sources being united under this heading are about different things, and are handled in various other WP articles. This new article fails in terms of WP:NOTE, WP:OR, and WP:V. There has been discussion already on the talk page, and no convincing source has been forthcoming.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is about a school of thought that was once dominant in British genetics as late as 15 years ago, which will mean that the subject is notable. which if included in other articles would give undue weight to the now largely abandoned idea that the British gene pool is substantially unaffected by subsequent invaders, because Wikipedia was being substantially written then. There was at two major TV series devoted to this, Francis Pryor's Britain AD and Britain BC, while you had some best sellers (as well as the accompanying books from Francis Pryor, they also included Blood of the Isles and The Origins of the British) which propounded a theory that was dominant in academia before more genetic testing of ancient DNA became practical. Some quotes that illustrate the thinking from that time:

"The gene pool of the island has changed, but more slowly and far less completely than implied by the old 'invasion model', and the notion of large-scale migrations, once the key explanation for change in early Britain, has been widely discredited." Dr Simon James - BBC article
"All these marker systems indicate a deep-shared ancestry in the Atlantic zone, dating at least in part to the end of the Ice Age" - Genetics and the Origins of the British Population - in the Wiley Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (accesible with Wikimedia)
"But geneticists who have tested DNA throughout the British Isles are edging toward a different conclusion. Many are struck by the overall genetic similarities, leading some to claim that both Britain and Ireland have been inhabited for thousands of years by a single people that have remained in the majority, with only minor additions from later invaders like Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings and Normans." Nicholas Wade
"The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands." - Prospect article by Stephen Oppenheimer, a major populariser of the argument
"This idea of a ‘Beaker Folk’ became unpopular after the 1960s as scepticism grew about the role of migration in mediating change in archaeological cultures" - The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe *"During the 1960s scepticism began to grow about the primacy of migration as a vector of social change in prehistory." The return of the Beaker Folk? Rethinking migration and population change in British prehistory academic paper that severely challenged the school
"By that time, many scholars favoured a model of elite dominance involving small, mobile warbands and the acculturation of the local British population" The Anglo-Saxon migration and the formation of the early English gene pool - Later article that severely challenged this school

I intend to add others as this debate goes on. JASpencer (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JASpencer: As discussed on the article talk page, what you are listing are at best different arguments (I think doubts would be a better term) against different possible migrations, in different periods of history and prehistory. They are simply not united by any "model" or "school" or "theory" or "movement". (To pre-empt another possible argument, they are also not united by being the results of genetic research. Doubts about the extreme "migrationism" of the late 19th and early 20th century, were, as you show yourself, common long before genetic evidence became available. Indeed your genetic-oriented sources are from the period before meaningful genetic evidence was available.) There are also other articles for every valid point that can be discussed about the sources you are uniting. Also, as discussed concerning recent articles you tried to create, putting everything else aside it wouldn't make any sense to make separate articles for models (for example the Germanicist extreme "migrationism") and diverse critics of those models [45][46].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but edit down, or merge. I cut out an entirely unsourced piece. If nobody objects, I'll do more editing down to a more manageable size, in the next 48 hours. Bearian (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And what is your source for the existence of the "Continuity Model of British Ancestry"? We should not have an article about something which does not exist, surely? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as an objection. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is an honest question, and has nothing to do with your editing proposal. If there is a source, then maybe I should change my own opinion, which is that the article should be deleted (although there would still be major overlap concerns). Concerning editing the article, the whole idea seems a bit surreal unless we can define some notable topic which this article is about? Right now it is essentially a collection of snippets about different topics which are covered in other articles. Not only is there already an article about the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, but even an extra article about the history of debates about it, made recently by the same editor who recently made this one Historiography of the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. In the same series of events we also had two more articles created for BOTH sides of the specific continuity migration this article about [47][48]. These now redirect to Migrationism and diffusionism. We also have [[49]]. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes editing would help, thank you for your interest. JASpencer (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a source for the term 'continuity model' as it relates to Britain, fwiw. Tewdar 09:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not-deer

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

Basically WP:FRINGE. The one WP:RS (National Geographic) is a quote from a non-notable podcast author which gives this subject a passing mention. The other three sources are all marginal at best. Skeptical Enquirer is a blog post from a self-described "member of the Church of Satan" who in turn mostly cites "personal communication". A Little Bit Human describes their mission as " to provide bold entertainment content that sparks meaningful conversations". The East Tennessean source is a blog post in a small student paper which in turn cites The Skeptical Enquirer, 4Chan, Reddit, TikTok and Tumblr.

And to top it all off, the "artistic depiction of a not-deer" is by the author of this article, complete with image elements tp make it look like a screenshot from a camera viewfinder.

My own searching comes up with nothing better. RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby who marked the page as reviewed. RoySmith (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article creator. The religious views of a journalist have no bearing on their reliability and the personal communications are all with subject matter experts. ALBH providing entertainment content does not make it unreliable, it has an editorial team. Entertainment news sites with editorial teams are generally considered reliable. And an artistic depiction created by a Wikipedia user is not disallowed, see for example literally every image in Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review. I also don't see how WP:FRINGE applies here since the article does not claim that this cryptid or any other cryptids are actually real. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to list your image at Paleoart review. RoySmith (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would make no sense since it is not paleoart. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This could be transwikified to the Cryptids Wikibook. MediaKyle (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the four sources:

National Geographic does make a passing mention: the only things it mentions is that they live in the Appalachians, and are deer-like in looks but not in behaviors. I don't think the fact that the quote is from a non-notable author matters, as notability and reliability are different things altogether, but the depth is clearly not enough for WP:SIGCOV.
Skeptical Inquirer is marked as "no clear consensus [...], leaning towards reliability" on Wikipedia:New pages patrol source guide. The linked discussion, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 315#Skeptic and Skeptic Inquirer, points out that there is a level of editorial review, but that most of it is left to the authors (submission guidelines). I'd put this one as a borderline source. Also, it does rely on primary quotes, but has a lot of secondary commentary accompanying them.
A Little Bit Human has not been discussed at RSN, and, while they do describe themselves as "our mission to provide bold entertainment content that sparks meaningful conversations", I don't think that's enough to mark them as unreliable. They do appear to have a team of editors and writers, so it might be more solid than Skeptical Enquirer, although I can't say that it is reliable with 100% certainty either.
East Tennessean hasn't been at RSN either, but it does look like they have a level of editorial oversight. The "editorial" category, of which their not-deer article is part, is overseen by a section editor and the executive editor, so it isn't just a blog post, although it still remains a student newspaper.

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the top two people listed at https://alittlebithuman.com/about-us/. Allia Luzong describes herself on LinkedIn as "Managing Editor, Lead Social Media Manager, Content Manager, SEO Writer, and then some." Justin Wagner says of himself, "Tasked with editing all content published on the site and ensuring that it follows our style guide, is grammatically correct, and is optimized for SEO. In addition, produced content that aligns with the site's focus, mainly entertainment." Neither of these things say to me "Provides editorial oversight to ensure what we publish is factual". What they say to me is, "If it is likely to generate clicks, we'll publish it". RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, they do have editors, but you don't think they count because you read a brief description of the editors on LinkedIn and decided what their job is actually like based on that. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. RoySmith (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided any actual arguments in favor of deletion. The only arguments I've seen are a critique of a journalist's religion, a claim that entertainment news is unreliable (with no evidence to back it up), a claim that illustrations made by Wikipedians are grounds for deletion, and an unexplained invocation of WP:FRINGE when it doesn't apply in any way. None of these are based in policy. If I were you I would retract this deletion request. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Mythology, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One look at alittlebithuman.com indicates that it clearly fails WP:RS. A reminder that the very first line of WP:RS reads "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". This site is nothing more than a bunch of listicles and ad space and likely involves more than a little generative AI. Poor "sources" like this need to be removed on sight. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe I'm between weak vs. full delete, but ultimately I just don't see WP:SIGCOV especially in the sources mentioned. NatGeo is the only reliable source, but that's very much passing mention. There's been discussion above on other sources, but even with potential editorial teams, two appear to be more entertainment rather than fact-based, and the student paper/editorial isn't something that would really contribute to notability either. Source-wise I'm just not seeing enough for notability for a made up animal. That said, looking at the article I can see an angle an article could exist in where it's just describing the myth followed by explaining what the mistaken ID could be from, such as a sick deer. If there were better sources, I could see a smaller/stub article existing while sticking closely to WP:FRINGE, but I don't see sources that could support that right now. KoA (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to Deer in mythology. I agree with RoySmith's replies to Chaotic Enby's analysis and think this falls short of GNG, although the fringe argument doesn't make sense to me. charlotte ^👸♥ 10:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to say fringe doesn't make sense here when we're talking about the cyrptid category of articles. That's a core guideline affecting those articles. It basically means we don't take seriously Bigfoot-esque stuff, but in high profile cases like that one or Loch Ness that do have notability anyways, we do describe the myth as such and how it may have come to be. Not all made up things are going to reach the level of warranting mention in an encyclopedia.

When I mentioned my delete rationale above though, I didn't see anything that would qualify this for a merge in terms of sourcing. A redirect would have slightly better grounding, but even that seems to be a shaky name at best to use as a search term. The deer mythology article doesn't really seem to be a good home either especially for content or even as a target since that's more about deer mythology that either have some degree of WP:GNG or WP:DUE such as traditional or established mythology. This particular article seems to be more of a WP:NEOLOGISM issue for the not-deer name instead:

Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term This one seems to be below that threshold of just being an internet/social media blip rather than a neologism in frequent use that we have good secondary sources on to generate content on regardless of notability. KoA (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this as well 1, and there seems to be some mentions on Google Books, not much tho.★Trekker (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all four sources are (not self-)published and seem to have some level of editorial oversight , and either seem clearly reliable or at least not unreliable. I don't agree that WP:FRINGE is relevant here, I don't see the article lending credence to the myth actually being true, and it also doesn't seem to give WP:UNDUE coverage to those claiming it is. Concur with Artemisia that a newspaper being inclined towards entertainment value doesn't inherently make it unreliable unless we believe that the facts used to create the entertainment value are false. AlexandraAVX (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per significant coverage in Skeptical Inquirer, East Tennessean, and journalnews.com.ph (linked by Trekker). I'm not sure what to make of the last of those sources, the online version of Filipino newspaper People's Journal (mentioned passingly on RSN here). The East Tennessean, a student newspaper, probably has dubious editorial standards, but not none. I'm not so bothered by Skeptical Inquirer, which is a green source in WP:RSP. Tenpop421 (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Via ProQuest I found [50], which doesn't help. Didn't easily find anything at archive.org, but more digging might give something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "sources" used here are unacceptable and this is a WP:FRIND topic that requires really solid sources. For example, claims of monster sightings, especially when they're being called "cryptids" (a 'sciencey' word from the pseudoscience of cryptozoology) fall under the domain of WP:FRINGE. That said, there is not much to even consider here: If notable, this would be a topic for folklorists but as it stands we don't even have a single quality independent source authored by an expert in folklore (that is a folklorist). The sources we do have are throwaway junk (see for example https://alittlebithuman.com ). Until this receives notable attention from a folklorist and ideally it makes its way through peer review, easy delete. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not promote the fringe theory that cryptids/monsters are real, the article is about the folklore surrounding them. The Skeptical Enquirer source does include claims made by academic folklorists. A peer reviewed study is not necessary for something to be notable. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article from the Skeptical Enquirer mentions sending emails to folklorists, one of which responded and said he had never heard of it. That's the extent of any folklorist involvement at this time. In short, right now this article is propped up by the sourcing equivalent of a broken pencil and a half-chewed eraser. If you want this article to stick around, you need far better sourcing. As a point of advice, if you cannot produce rock-solid sourcing, the wise move is to just wait until you find excellent sourcing or you're just going to receive negative feedback from editors with a lot of experience in these corners. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge to a brief summary in deer in mythology (although wow, that article isn't great). i'm in agreement with charlotte that it just barely misses GNG for now, and i'm not thrilled with the quality of the sources. however, i don't find the appeals to FRINGE by roysmith & bloodofox convincing at all. i think this certainly has the potential to become notable as a folklore topic - maybe it should be incubated in userspace until there is some SIGCOV in published academic sources.
edit: upon further thought on the practicalities of a merge & re-reading all the arguments, i'm leaning more towards a redirect to Folklore of the United States#Legendary and folkloric creatures (if Appalachian folklore had its own article i would prefer that as a target, but it is currently a redirect). ... sawyer * any/all * talk 12:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I envy editors such as yourself who have not experienced the depths of Wikipedia's long and unpleasant history with cryptozoology. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia's long and unpleasant history with cryptozoology" is completely irrelevant to this specific page and this discussion. Having a grudge against one specific subject doesn't mean that this page itself violates WP:FRINGE. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I am the primary editor behind Cryptozoology and many related articles. Nobody has said this page has violated WP:FRINGE but its subject is a fringe topic where WP:FRIND applies and it needs very solid sourcing to survive a delete vote. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i see no reason for comments on any particular individual's experience in the cryptozoology topic. it is unconstructive and irrelevant. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 12:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptozoology is the single most relevant article for this topic. If you're working in this space and have not read it, then I suggest you become familiar with the topic before commenting further. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i am pretty familiar with cryptozoology & folklore in general. i have little experience with these topics specifically in relation to wikipedia. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 13:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, there's a constant struggle with these articles and that is etting them sourced appropriately with scholars in folklore studies versus whatever media sources or fringe sources pick them up. I've written many related articles and had to delete many others and the sole difference is the question of WP:RS and WP:FRIND, as have several other editors here. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a google scholar search for "not-deer" appalachia folklore pulls up two results from Appalachian Journal which seem promising, although i can't find these articles listed in the contents of any of the relevant volumes of the journal nor can i find access to them anywhere else. not sure what's going on there. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 12:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us the citations? RoySmith (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I tried searching JSTOR (which does index Appalachian Journal) and couldn't find anything. I tried with and without the hyphen:

RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liles, L. (2023) "Hold Your Head Underwater", Appalachian Journal, 51.
Campbell, O. (2023) "Why We Dance With The Devil In The Cold Moonlight-Cause He's There!" Appalachian Journal, 51.

both have the same preview text on google scholar: "… stories about what to Appalachians-and only the Appalachians- do when you meet the Devil
or the not-deer… underscoring the sense for sure." in the Appalachians that nature is incredibly …"
it may be subsections of a single article, but i'm not sure which one - https://appjournal.appstate.edu/issues/volume-51-no-1-2 ... sawyer * any/all * talk 13:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this link works if you're logged in to the WP-library:[51] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i did try to look on EBSCO via the library, but it didn't work right for me. weird ... sawyer * any/all * talk 13:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachian Journal. Fall2023/Winter2024, Vol. 51 Issue 1/2, p18 has a brief mention, referenced to this book:[52], which appears WP:SPS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that'll be what it is, surely. seems a passing mention of a SPS in a good source... dead end. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 13:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The book A Guide to Sky Monsters : Thunderbirds, the Jersey Devil, Mothman, and Other Flying Cryptids mentions the Mising, "sometimes described as a deerlike creature with wings." Not close enough, I fear. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mentioned above, it appears that there are enough sources to retain the information, whether as its own page or as part of another page relating to cryptozoology or deer mythology. I advocate for a standalone page or a unique Not-Deer heading on another page in order to more easily find this article via search engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coulson Lives (talk • contribs) 13:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Coulson Lives I'm curious: this is the first edit you've made in a 1.5 years. Is this being discussed somewhere else which drew your attention? RoySmith (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith I'm not aware of any campaigns to keep this page open, if that is what you're asking. Though, that doesn't mean that a campaign does not exist somewhere.

I heard about the Not-Deer cryptid earlier today and wanted to research it. Wikipedia is my go-to; even though I haven't edited in a while, I use Wikipedia at least once a day. I find that Wikipedia does a good job condensing information across multiple sources and distilling the information into an easy to navigate source. So, I guess that's another reason why I want to keep this page, rather than lose the information forever. Coulson Lives (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NatGeo has a brief trivial mention. Of the sources that discuss this topic in greater depth, the East Tennessean is a student newspaper from ETSU, A Little Bit Human appears to be an SEO-driven bloggy site, and Skeptical Inquirer appears more solid, but the article on the not-deer is from a blog within the SI site, so editorial oversight is unclear. Of the three, the East Tennesseean and A Little Bit Human are basically regurgitating chatter on discussion boards. I'm basically convinced by others that for WP:FRINGE topics like cryptozoology, much stronger reliable sourcing is required than what we have here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It doesn't look to me like this is likely to end in a consensus for keep or delete. Is there a WP:ATD folks can agree on? Is sawyer's Folklore of the United States#Legendary and folkloric creatures suggestion a good target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~Merge per Sirfurboy's arguments as an WP:ATD. given that there is no agreement here on the reliability of most of the sources or if WP:FRINGE applies and that the article is relatively new. On the understanding that if this article is to go back to mainspace at some point that it be through WP:AFC. TarnishedPath^talk 00:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak delete~~ : A very likely non-existent creature that doesn't seem to have coverage in RS. This [53] and [54] are about the only two sources that aren't in the article. I wouldn't consider either one a RS. If we had a description in a book talking about cryptids, I'd likely change my vote. Can't all be the Loch Ness monster I suppose; that level of coverage is an exception for these types of "things" Oaktree b (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep This [55] and [56], second one is probably enough. Very week keep, but that's that. Oaktree b (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these are WP:RS. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[57] isn't obviously SPS. The other seems way too in-universe. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Less notable than your average Pokémon character. 12.75.41.118 (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very bizarre and unconvincing argument. I thought Wikipedia:Pokémon test hasn't been invoked since 2007 lol. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should invoke the Karen test as well. Oaktree b (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This whole AfD has been a festival of bizarre and unconvincing arguments. The threshold for being a reliable source is not any of:

(not self-)published and seem to have some level of editorial oversight
probably has dubious editorial standards, but not none
isn't obviously SPS

It is a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. RoySmith (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Folklore of the United States#Legendary and folkloric creatures per Sawyer777 (albeit they said 'redirect' but see below). Per the relist comment, asking if there is an ATD we can agree on. I think that target is more focussed than the one suggested by Queen of Hearts, although the deer in mythology target is not wrong. I think this is more a folklore of the US thing than mythology in general. I think the draftify ATD is acceptable, as the page is new, but that would rely on the topic being notable such that a page should be written. On that, the sources are really very marginal, and RoySmith's comment directly above is pertinent. Oaktree b leans weakly towards keeping, but these are not great sources. The fact that this is not covered at the Folklore of the United States page is telling. It is hard to make a case for a standalone page on a marginally notable subject when the larger page that this would be a child of does not even mention the subject. A paragraph or two could be condensed from this page onto that one, and this should then be redirected there under WP:PAGEDECIDE, unless and until this becomes much more fully covered by reliable sources such that a spinout page can be justified. Note that a redirect to that target is not possible - it has to be a merge (however small), as the target must mention the subject to be a valid merge target - and currently it doesn't. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fundamentally opposed to a selective merge as described by @Sirfurboy, but that would still require WP:RS and I don't see that we have any. If a topic meets WP:V but not WP:N, it can be included in some article about a more general topic. But if it doesn't meet WP:V, it should be deleted. RoySmith (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Search results for "Plainfield Horse Show"". New York Times.

[2] "Search for 'Plainfield Riding and Driving Club'". Almay.

[3] "Search for 'Plainfield Horse Show'". Almay.

[4] "Plainfield : The First Day". Bit & Spur. II (11). The Bit & Spur Publishing Company: 129. January 1906.

[5] "At Picturesque Plainfield". Bit & Spur. XII (1): 18–19, 56. January 1913. (page 56) ...which in point of daily and also total attendance, broke every record for the past ten years, clearly indicating that in New Jersey, as in other sections, there is a decided increase in horse interest, and all that pertains to the horse ... The management is to be warmly congratulated.

[6] "Dates of Prominent Horse Shows". The Carriage Monthly. Philadelphia: Ware Bros. Company. May 1912. pp. 45, 49. Following are the date of the principal horse shows scheduled for the remainder of the year. The list includes the more prominent shows of this country and Canada: ... Plainfield, N. J., June 6th-8th. (page 49) Both championships in the harness class went to J. W. Harriman's entries. (page 45)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]