Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Purge

19 February 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

< February 18 February 20 >

Purge server cache

Israel–Seychelles relations

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

Article primarily based on 3 primary sources from the Israeli government. 2 of these merely confirm no embassies, a third is a factoid that Seychelles allowed Israelis to visit during the pandemic. There appears to be no third party of these relations. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By now you have reacted to everyone who disagreed with you yet never convinced why this article should be deleted. There should have been a strong case in the intro. We did not see that. Instead, you shopped in the references, now shop in the sources. The problem is that sufficient unchallenged sources remain. And the listed articles are just a small sample. Maariv regularly covers the subject. For example: Maariv1 Maariv2 Maariv3 Maariv4. gidonb (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
can you tone it down a notch? LibStar (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and arguing over split hairs over references and sources. Suggest you step back from your combative tone. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not combative at all. Would be happy to explain why the distinction between sources and references is important but you can also read about all that elsewhere. Have reacted only below my own writings, where you engaged me, as you did with others. Did not make up my mind hastily. And I see nuances regarding the article. Have detailed these below. Unfortunately, you do drain the sources that totally support keeping the article time and again under vague waves. I hope people can see through the noise. gidonb (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find it combative. LibStar (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No doubt the article is poorly written and the sourcing is lacking, but that can be resolved without deletion. The topic meets WP:N and WP:RSs do exist for this topic. Eelipe (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are you referring to? LibStar (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article lacks citations to reliable, secondary sources, and I am not finding any either. Yilloslime (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by the GNG. The article is supported by multiple sources, identified by me in in the comment above and within the article itself. More sources exist. No compelling case for deletion has been made. The deletion rationale mentions sources, yet only critiques references. It selectively focuses on three references that support the article's content, while ignoring the Israel Channel 12 news item that supports notability. On the downside: the article is rather short, yet meets the threshold for viability. gidonb (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Channel 12 or 13? LibStar (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Channel 12. gidonb (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several of the Keeps here lack P&G substance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 09:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian Wallace

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

previously deleted article not yet ready for namespace: non-WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY dependent BLP, no WP:SIGCOV by unrelated reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 04:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would like to mention that I am not very experienced in editing on the English Wikipedia and that I have been more active since June. I mainly contribute to the Serbian Wikipedia, where I am an administrator. On the Serbian Wikipedia, when an article has a "construction" template, no one edits it. So I assumed it was the same here. I haven't finished the article yet and plan to add more references. Here, I mostly write about musicians from jazz and classical music, and for them, there is often a problem with fewer available references. When I started editing here, an experienced user told me that the website allaboutjazz.com is considered a reliable source for musicians of this genre.I found Dorian Wallace while researching the article on John Sanborn (media artist), where his name was in red, and that led me to explore more about him. Could you please tell me which parts of the text are considered promotional? I did use his official website as a source, but I did not copy sentences directly. Dorian Wallace has been mentioned several times in The New York Times, but I haven’t included those references in the article because access requires a paid subscription. I do have a paid subscription—can I include those references in the article? The New York Times is a highly significant media outlet. If you allow me, I will add all the references I can find today and possibly tomorrow. If they are not adequate, you can delete the article. However, I kindly ask for your help in identifying which parts of the article should be removed to avoid promotional content. Thank you in advance for your guidance!--Марко Станојевић (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is also mentioned in The Independent [4]--Марко Станојевић (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace has composed and collaborated with artists including Robert Ashley, John King, Dave Liebman, Frank London, Matt Marks, John Sanborn, Son Lux, Aleksandra Vrebalov, and Pamela Z.--Марко Станојевић (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article was nominated for deletion, I have doubled the number of references, added neutral sources, and expanded the content. I would appreciate it if someone could review it again, as it is no longer the same article as when it was initially nominated for deletion.--Марко Станојевић (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the improvements made by the author?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Supermobile

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

Very minor element of the Superman universe; short article, pure plot summary and list of appearances. Fails WP:GNG. No idea where this could redirect, but always open to consider redirection a viable alternative to hard deletion (closer, please note: if anyone suggests a target, consider me to support it). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete unless a merge target can be found. There's not really a good merge target for this. Perhaps to Superman#Merchandising given the one source mentioned here mentions it was used exclusively for that purpose? But even so it'd be a brief sentence. This is an extremely minor universe element, so there's not much to be retained here. If a good merge target is found I'll change my vote to merge, so ping me if something changes. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Viraj Bahl

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG as the sources mainly focus on the subject interviews and statements, without providing significant coverage. Majority of cited sources focus on Viraj Bahl company growth (revenue & product launches) rather than his personal notability as an individual. Refs (India.com, TimesNowNews, DNA India) lack depth or are promotional in tone. Coverage in outlets ( Inc42 and ET Retail ) primarily discuss Veeba as a company, not Viraj Bahl individual legacy or influence beyond his role as founder. While his role as a judge on Shark Tank India(2024) adds to his public profile, this is recent and may not yet be supported by independent sourcing to confirm lasting notability failing WP:NBLP and many of the sources here are exactly what WP:NEWSORGINDIA tells us to watchout for. NXcrypto Message 04:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The above comments made in support to keep the article are unconvincing. Subject fails GNG. Agletarang (talk) 08:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. AgerJoy talk 08:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep new articles[5][6] are appearing related to his TV work. Orange sticker (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of these sources only have generic bylines and do not identify an individual reporter and therefore unusable for establishing notability per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article meets WP:GNG. There is WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources that focus on his personal notability. It also meets the basic criteria of WP:NBLP since the subject is notable for more than one event (again, as evidenced by the reliable sources cited).--DesiMoore (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as Per Orange Sticker and DesiMoore, the article contains several significant coverage sources about the subject from reliable sources and plenty more online about him and his TV work. (Ref 1) The Forbes article also contains significant coverage; his name appears 28 times in the article Monhiroe (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per above, the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NBLP. Taabii (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Despite all the WP:VAGUEWAVES votes above (which should be discarded by the closer), no evidence has been provided for meeting the notability guideline, the sources cited in the article all have issues such as lacking bylines , promotional tone etc. as noted at WP:NEWSORGINDIA. They are unusable for establishing notability. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG, citations are not independent of the person and not enough significant coverage independent of the subject. Common knowledge that Sharktank judging slots nowadays are up for sale. JustinTrooDooo (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that all judges who appear on the show pay for their spots? That's your personal opinion and it's a separate discussion that would require solid evidence to back it up. Shark Tank is a popular global business show and any such claim would need to be backed by solid evidence. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources cited in the article like Forbes, GQ and several others are bylined, independent, and provide sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Bakhtar40 (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this satisfies WP:GNG and hence it should be there on Wikipedia.Adamantine123 (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep– I respectfully disagree with Ratnahastin. The points made by the editors above especially DesiMooreo and Monhiroe regarding WP:GNG and WP:NBIO are valid and can not be overlooked. Having generic bylines does not necessarily mean an article is unreliable or paid for. The sources highlighted by Orange Sticker are neutral with no promotional tone and are totally usable here. I also don't agree with the claim that all the sources in the article are unbylined or promotional. In fact, the majority of the article's sources (about 17) are clearly bylined and come from reputable news outlets. For instance, sources like Forbes India, GQ India, Outlook Business, and Indiatimes are reliable independent and well-established with editorial oversight and significant coverage. These sources aren't promotional and are quite usable in establishing this person's notability. Indian Express, Times Now, and Economic Times are also good sources. Additionally, being a judge on Shark Tank, one of the most popular global business television shows, is significant. This individual has received significant media attention for his appearance on the show and continues to get more coverage from independent media as shown by online searches.EmilyR34 (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You clearly have ignored all concerns about WP:NEWSORGINDIA, the articles you have cited [7][8][9] (two of them with generic bylines)are nothing more than puff pieces and should be discounted per the guidance. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fully aware of WP:NEWSORGINDIA and everything I wrote above. Almost all media outlets, big or small, publish paid or sponsored content not just in India but worldwide. At the end of the day, media companies aren't nonprofits. Their main job is reporting, writing, editing, and presenting news to the public, but they mostly survive on advertising. You see a lot of display ads on their websites and advertisements in newspapers that's how they make money. That said major media outlets categorize paid stories separately. For example, The Times of India publishes them under "Spotlight," Hindustan Times under "Brand Media" or "Impact Feature," and Inc42 under "BrandLabs." These articles are usually puffery and easy to spot (not lecturing). You're right that they don't establish notability but that doesn't mean we should classify everything that isn't published under those specific categories in WP:NEWSORGINDIA just because they have generic bylines and only consider editorial content. Plenty of Wikipedia articles use sources without bylines. Major publications have strict editorial processes. Proper bylined articles go through rigorous review and fact-checking. I don't think all articles fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Sources includingForbes India, GQ India, and Outlook Business, provide reliable, independent coverage with editorial oversight and are valid sources. As for the other articles, I wouldn't call them puffery. Puffery is exaggerated or misleading praise. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "publish paid or sponsored content" Yes with adequate disclosure, but that doesn't happen in India, you entirely missed the point of the guidance. Indian media is notorious for publishing paid news/coverage without any disclosure, they publish press releases, churnalist puff and promotional pieces as news, read User:Ms Sarah Welch/sandbox/Paid news and private treaties too. "I wouldn't call them puffery" - Did you even read them? They all have promotional tone. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not get into this sandbox as Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is the right place to discuss this- I understood what you're trying to prove with your comments, so let's focus on that.
    "But that doesn’t happen in India," as you claim, then why did these publications introduce paid content categories and choose not to publish such content under "Staff Reporter" or an editor's name? How did we find out that publications label content as "Brand Media," "Brand Post," "Featured Content," "Partnered Content," "Spotlight," or "Brand Lab" to indicate paid material? And how were they reported and included in WP:NEWSORGINDIA? Isn't that a disclosure?
    Just because some publications or journalists engage in this practice (posting paid content without proper disclosure) does not mean we should assume the same for every outlet. I'm not claiming media companies are NGOs (please refer to my previous comment carefully). However, making broad generalizations about all publications is neither accurate nor fair.
    Notability should be evaluated solely based on the sources used- if independent sources provide sufficient coverage, the subject meets our notability criteria. If not, the content should be removed. The sources I presented above offer sufficient, independent, reliable, and significant coverage and meet WP:GNG. I will end it here. EmilyR34 (talk) 07:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD is the proper place to judge sources which what we are doing here. "paid content categories and choose not to publish such content" - You are failing to understand that guidance is clearly about undisclosed paid editing in Indian media, these media houses publish press releases and puff pieces intermingled with regular news. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, AfD is the right place to evaluate sources and that's what I pointed out in my comment above. However, it seems like instead of doing that we're lumping everything under WP:RSNOI. EmilyR34 (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per all above. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NBLP. Godovereverthing (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:NEWSORGINDIA. NXcrypto Message 03:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Forbes India, GQ India, Outlook Business, and Indiatimes also fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA? EmilyR34 (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All of them are indian sources , therefore if they have issues that are documented at the guidance, they fall under it. - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not what I asked. I'm questioning whether Forbes India, GQ, Outlook Business, and Indiatimes, which I provided above, also have the same issues mentioned at WP:NEWSORGINDIA. EmilyR34 (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source assessment done by someone familiar with our notability guidelines would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 09:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney nurses anti-Israel remarks incident

[edit]
Sydney nurses anti-Israel remarks incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. While this incident got plenty of coverage in primary sources, it is way too soon to suppose that will have WP:SUSTAINED coverage and will lead to secondary sources. There are also are aspects of WP:BLPCRIME, the two nurses don't need to have their names and actions highlighted for ever in an encyclopedia, they weren't notable and the event is in the end an anecdote, not a major event. Finally, I would like to compare this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States proposed takeover of the Gaza Strip, a much more notable event which was deleted for NOTNEWS and similar considerations (but which has since continued to have real-world repercussions on a major scale). It seems hard to argue that that page warranted deletion, but as the arguments used there apply a hundred times more here, I don't see how the article on this minor incident can stay. Fram (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamo Gaming

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

The subject does not meet WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. No WP:SIGCOV found. Taabii (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – none of the sources is reliable and independent and secondary, and there is no significant coverage of the person. The awards he has won are not notable, and there is no actual claim to notability. --bonadea contributions talk 10:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources like Financial Express, Times of India, and Hindustan Times (excluding the Mother's Day one, which satisfies WP:RSNOI's dogwhistles for advertorials) clearly satisfy GNG. TOI is (unfortunately) one of the best sources in India, and its concern at RSP is because their paid content's labeling is not immediately obvious; the source cited in the article that features Dynamo does not seem to have the paid disclosure and has clear neutral tone and byline, so I believe it is not an advertorial. I also doubt Bonadea's claim that the awards are not notable. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Aaron Liu, for your thoughtful assessment. I appreciate your detailed breakdown of the sources. Based on previous feedback, I have worked on improving the article by adding more independent and reliable sources and ensuring a neutral tone to address concerns about notability.
    I have now included sources such as Inside Sports India, FirstPostz, Sportskeeda, Hindustan Times, an official X post by the Government, and an official post by the PUBG Mobile YouTube channel. These further establish significant coverage of Dynamo Gaming from reputable media outlets and official sources.
    Regarding the awards, I have tried to verify their notability and coverage—if you have any recommendations for strengthening this section, I’d be happy to refine it further. Sarthak14331 (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the sources you added help notability. Interviews aren't secondary, InsideSports looks sketchy and has very little information and thus no significant coverage, the government is a good source for that claim but does not provide significant coverage, PUBG mobile has a financial interest in promoting itself and thus isn't really secondary, and SportsKeeda is completely user-generated with little editorial credibility. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your feedback, Aaron Liu. I understand the concerns regarding the nature of the sources, and I appreciate the clarification on what qualifies as significant coverage.
    I will look into adding more independent and in-depth sources that provide substantial coverage rather than just passing mentions or interviews. Based on your concerns, I will remove Sportskeeda and InsideSports as they do not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. If you have any recommendations for reliable sources that could help establish notability, I’d be grateful for the guidance.
    Regarding the government source, while it may not provide significant coverage on its own, it does help verify certain claims. I’ll also review the other sources and see if there are better alternatives that align with Wikipedia’s guidelines on reliable secondary sources.
    Thanks again for your time and insights—I’ll work on improving the article accordingly. Sarthak14331 (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MimirIsSmart (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your input. However, I have already improved the article by adding better sources and removing weaker ones like Sportskeeda. Additionally, I have fixed the promotional tone and added more reliable sources, including Hindustan Times,Times of India, IGN India, Financial Express, FirstPost, an official government X post have been included. If you believe the article still lacks notability, I would appreciate any guidance on additional sources that could help establish it. Sarthak14331 (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you claim that you removed the Sportskeeda sources or why you seem to still think you added sources that establish notability. In fact this all seems like RefBombing. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu:I apologize for the confusion regarding the removal of the Sportskeeda reference. Upon reviewing the edit history, I see that you were the one who removed it, not me. I misspoke earlier, and I appreciate you pointing that out. Thank you for catching that.
Regarding Dynamo Gaming, I believe it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines due to its significant presence in the esports community and the Indian gaming industry. It has been covered by reliable, independent sources that highlight its achievements and impact.
Thank you for bringing up the concern about refbombing. I want to clarify that my intention was not to overwhelm the article with references but to provide sufficient evidence of Dynamo Gaming's notability. Each reference I included is from a reliable, independent source and directly supports the content in the article. If any of the references seem excessive or unnecessary, I’d be happy to review and adjust them. I’m open to your feedback and would appreciate any suggestions on how to improve the sourcing further. Sarthak14331 (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you respond to what I said above? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another assessment of sourcing would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chennai City Gangsters

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

Non-notable unreleased film. See [10] and User talk:Gowthamaprabu#Chennai City Gangsters. Kindly draftify per agreement with article creator. DareshMohan (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Kalous

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

Fails WP:NATH and WP:NOLY. Non-notable athlete with a short career and without achievements.The recent expansion did nothing to prove notability. FromCzech (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Please see the message on my talk page requesting deletion. Previous rationale for no consensus was that the subject(s) of this article wished the page to be split and not deleted; I think that the current comment on my talk page makes it clear that deletion is an option per WP:BLPREQDELETE. GnocchiFan (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Leslie (disambiguation)

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

A one-entry dab page? What exactly is being disambiguated here? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vierka Berkyová

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

No indication of significance for this Z-list celeb. References are profiles and interviews. Fails WP:SIGCOV scope_creepTalk 20:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Život has no byline, it is a PR announcement of the new album which never appeared and the SME stated is from the editorial office, meaning its paid for PR as well. Those two are non-rs sources. You don't know how to evaluate references. scope_creepTalk 16:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making hostile personal comments. Thank you. (I am not sure I agree with your appraisal of the sources (Korzár being what it is, not great but certainly not plainly "non-rs"; and the same goes for Život and Plus jeden deň (same group) in general and in that particular case) but even if it is correct, that's not my point). -Mushy Yank. 19:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your the editor that removed the prod and put these trash references in. You have no clue how to evaluate a proper reference either. I intend to check every article you have created in the next several weeks. scope_creepTalk 20:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Be my guest. But, again, do refrain from making (very) hostile (and rude) personal comments. -Mushy Yank. 20:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic but you can sign your comments with ~~~~ All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 13:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you have been an editor for 6 years now so I am a bit shocked that you didn't know this (that's an assumption though). Please remember to sign your comments properly. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 14:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @All Tomorrows No Yesterdays:, not sure what you meant: who did you assume didn't sign their comments properly? Every single comment on this page was. Including mine. -Mushy Yank. 16:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank: – I would be fine for redirect. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clariniie: Actually, I am now a Keep myself too given the new sources presented. Thanks!-Mushy Yank. 16:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sufficient converge in secondary sources. Personal attacks are not an argument for page deletion. Newklear007 (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newklear007: What secondary sources, exactly? If there is no secondary sources that satisfies the WP:BLP and WP:BIO, then in a month or two it will going to Afd. So post up the secondary sources. I see you have only done 15 Afd's. It is common best practice, consensus based practice to post the evidence on here, so they can be reviewed, i.e. WP:SECONDARY sources that satisfy WP:BIO. Then I can close it. scope_creepTalk 14:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep Here you go [11][12][13][14][15] Newklear007 (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newklear007: Thanks for posting that. It looks like there is some more stuff there that wasn't there before. I'll take a look, shortly. scope_creepTalk 15:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These references arent particularly decent either. What is here is a singer who took part in the Slovensko hľadá SuperStar, at the end was dropped by her label and never made an album. Most of the coverage is instrumental to that event and there is nothing else. She fails WP:NSINGER and WP:SIGCOV. It all z-list stuff and completely non-notable. scope_creepTalk 19:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that uncivilized behaviour, personal attacks and singling out a specific editor to follow around are all serious policy violations.
If you disagree with someone's source assessment, criticize the assessment, not the editor who presented it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Augusto De Luca

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Augusto De Luca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dubious notability, tagged as such since 2023 without improvement. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as mentioned in the previous deletion nomination, the article was initially created as a “promotional entry” and that may have been the case, however, I created this article independently, without knowing a previous version existed, and without any contact with those who worked on that said original. As stated in the previous deletion discussion, the subject had notability, but the article was removed due to its promotional nature, something that isn’t the case now. V.B.Speranza (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To remind you, we are discussing the notability of the article's subject per WP:NBIO, not the intentions of the article's author or the neutrality of its content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasant Ridge, Jasper County, Indiana

[edit]
Pleasant Ridge, Jasper County, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So here we hit yet another conundrum in Jasper County, which seems to have more than its share, mostly due to Mr. Gifford of railroad fame. And this is plainly a point on a railroad (though not on his), as I find a tax assessment for the depot. The problem is that leaving out a soil series name use, everything is either using this to locate various properties/people, or records a series of industrial/agricultural facilities at the spot, of which there are three at present: a trailer manufacturer which occupies the westernmost and oldest spot, an ag co-op which may be the descendant of the oldest documented business, and a bio-energy plant which is a relative newcomer. The irregular lake to the north is the remains of the fourth business, a quarry which was apparently opened up around 1960. Both the co-op and the quarry have secondary documentation; interestingly, I also found this ad for a property sale, a tile factory which clearly wasn't here, but the agent of the seller apparently was. Or at least, he picked up his mail there. But once again, there's no sign anyone ever lived here. There was what looks from the air like a farmstead directly at the RR crossing in 1957, but it disappears after that; another disappears into the quarry property. Otherwise it's all farm fields surrounding the industry. Can anyone find something that actually describes the place? Mangoe (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HuMo-gen

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. The best coverage I could find is four sentences in this paper. Even this source has dubious reliability: it cites two research articles in this sub-paragraph ([16], [17]), but neither of them mention HuMo-gen. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Typesetter CMS

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

No evidence of notability, many of the sources don't even support the given statement. Greenman (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Features of Spider-Man media

[edit]
Features of Spider-Man media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Following from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Features of the Marvel Universe (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, this is the last of those three fictional universe descriptions in a list form. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST; Wikipedia articles are not places for pure plot summaries, and as a list, this is too broad (list of all fictional in-universe concepts related to Spider-Man). PS. Also, on the off chance this is kept, this would need renaming to the list of something format. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and consolidate into Spider-Man per Trailblazer. I was worried this would be some massive pile of information to sift through, but the info in the article is relatively concise. Barring the three locations with pre-existing articles, there are two schools and one prison. These locations contain a lot of unneeded information (Do we really need lists of minor characters without articles?) and can be trimmed quite easily to slot somewhere into the Spider-Man article. All locations, including those with articles, can be mentioned in brief there, with a summary explaining what each location is and why it is important to the Spider-Man mythos. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:CSC point 2. Jclemens (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    CSC only applies if none meet notability, which is blatantly false when three of the article's entries have their own articles. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An all-or-nothing rule seems ill-considered here, given that Wikipedia has tons of lists of instances for which some are notable and have articles while others are not (e.g., List of mayors of Florence). BD2412 T 17:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability of a list is often based on the notability of the subject group. Largely unfamiliar with your hyperlinked article, but an important governmental position is likely to be more covered in sources than a list of fictional locations with no sourcing showcasing real world relevance. Many of the subjects in the list are entirely non-notable, and the subject itself isn't notable, either. Notability should not be inherited from the few locations that are notable, either.
    Also note that CSC 2 says that "Before creating a stand-alone list, consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a "parent" article." CSC 2 isn't exactly a blanket keep statement, even if all the subjects fail notability. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My reasoning here is that Spider-Man is an article on a specific fictional character, not the entire universe this character occupies, which is separately notable. Although this universe is a subset of the Marvel Comics universe it has locations and characters (many of these separately notable) that arise from it and that are specific to Spider-Man media. This is reflected in fact that there are three separate film franchises, including the 1970s one, around this character and their environs completely unconnected to the MCU or anything else Marvel. Of course, there is also the MCU-adjacent film series, which also reflects the locations and character specific to the Spider-Man universe. Perhaps the title of this article needs to be adjusted to reflect that or the criteria for inclusion of content needs to be clarified, but it will not be at all difficult to demonstrate GNG worthy coverage at this fictional world I've tried with the character itself. BD2412 T 18:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no indication the Universe of Spider-Man is a notable topic either, though. That's my main concern. Regardless of title, this is just a non-notable topic unless sourcing can be shown. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why there should be allowed time to find sources to prove whether it is or not, rather than forcing an AfD with inconclusive information. This is something to hash out at the list talk, not here. AfD should be a last resort, not a garbage dumb to prove a point. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm personally of the mind that if it's at AfD, we may as well stick with the discussion while it's here, but I see your point. Decided to do a quick source run to double check details. There's a fair few hits in News for Sony's shared movie universe, but that's already covered at Sony's Spider-Man Universe, and when Sony is removed, there's not much outside of trivial Wikipedia:VALNET hits, which don't count toward notability. There's a brief hit here [18], but that's very short and more discussing characters than locations. Outside of that, Books has little bar trivial mentions using it as a buzzword for Spider-Man media. I can't view every scholar hit, but there seems to be a lot of hits on the multiverse in Spider-Man, but again that's an entirely different subject. There may be some hits I missed but I did take a look through everything I could and found little. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep much as it is. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I mean seriously, this better be the last of these AFD abuses I find or you're going to ANI, dude. BarntToust 02:00, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @BarntToust Drop that tone and WP:REFACTOR yourself, or ANI it will be - for your violations of WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus, you calling the work of the contributors "crap" is something that tells me you need to REFACTOR yourself, as no editor should be as brazen as you have been at these afds. Before you dig yourself into a bigger hole by getting pissy agitated with me, I strongly suggest you do as @Jclemens advised you on the MU afd; to quote them describing your conduct: deceptive, inappropriate, and your attitude is unbecomingly disrespectful to the people who build Wikipedia. Do better, and stop kicking sandcastles over just because you're an academic. BarntToust 03:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412, as you were saying on the MU AfD, what are your thoughts on this? BarntToust 03:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC) [reply]
    Jesus, Piotrus, you should know better than being confrontational to other editors. Please, WP:Assume good faith and don't pick fights. That is not what this discussion is for. I would happily report either one for derailing this discussion and being uncivil towards each other, so I hope it doesn't have to come to that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I'm finna tap out and just fine-tune a page I've been working on. Sayonara. BarntToust 03:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking out some confrontational garbage I wrote. I got better things to write for better reasons. BarntToust 04:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For those who care, I have mended fences with BarnToust on my talk page - we are good. And I will also apologize for using the term 'crap'. While I consider the content in question to be low quality and IMHO mostly non-encyclopedic, I was too colloquial in my assessment :> Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Little support for outright deletion, but there is no apparent consensus on whether this should be standalone page. Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North Coast Computer Project

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

Nothing in google news, 1 hit in google books and 3 small mentions in Australian database Trove. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Beaver dam Czech Republic

[edit]
2025 Beaver dam Czech Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant WP:NOTNEWS violation. Launchballer 04:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Dawson

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

Sources provided are insufficient for general notability guideline as shown by source analysis (below), in which at most one source is acceptable. WP:BEFORE did not retrieve better sources, in particular for Jet ski at the 2023 SEA Games which one would expect some recent coverage about.

Source assessment table prepared by User:Bri
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No subject's SPS can not be used for notability claims about education do not have an exception in WP:ABOUTSELF Yes The article discusses the subject directly and in detail ✘ No
No not independent; employer Yes presumed reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF material No has part of subject's name in email address, no other bio details ✘ No
No not independent; uses awarding org. as citation of award Yes presumed reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF material No provides a year and a name, no details about what was award-worthy ✘ No
Yes Yes Business Journal generally reliable Dead link, not archived, can not be retrieved for assessment ? Unknown
No source states that this subj is an affiliate of their org (see quote) Yes presumed reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF material No passing mention: "The event is being organized, in part, by longtime IJSBA announcer (and racer) Dawn Dawson..." ✘ No
No coverage of org's own event Yes presumed reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF material No passing mention of announcer at an event ✘ No
Yes No local alt-weekly not considered reliable. At RSN another editor said "somewhat reliable for coverage of its local area" which could mean reliable for the fact that they announced the event. No passing mention of announcer/coordinator for an event ✘ No
No passing mention: "The Canterbury Club flew the lovely international jet ski announcer Dawn Dawson all the way from her home in the USA, Dawn kept the large crowd informed and entertained all weekend with her cheeky banter." ✘ No
No Independence of un-authenticated YT uploader is impossible to determine (possibly pseudonymous). No YouTube clips can not be used for notability (WP:YOUTUBE) with rare exceptions. This is an upload by some individual of their personal video and should be treated as non-reliable SPS. No the subject's name is credited in the video description as an announcer, nothing more ✘ No
No local alt-weekly, not useful for notability ✘ No
No about own event: "the AJSBA is proud to once again present the highest level of jetsports competition in Australia says President" Yes presumed reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF material No passing mention: "This year we welcome... Dawn Dawson providing expert commentary..." ✘ No
No website about own event Yes presumed reliable on basic facts No passing mention: "Esteemed Surfslam announcers Mike Young and Dawn Dawson will be on hand all weekend assisting the web stream" (archived) ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

☆ Bri (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 São Paulo King Air F90 crash

[edit]
2025 São Paulo King Air F90 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Per WP:COOKIE "a common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from the rest". Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the others, or alternatively, redirect to Beechcraft King Air#Accidents and incidents where the crash is mentioned. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moh Saaduddin

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:JOURNALIST. Lack of notability has been tagged since January 2019. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collabrification

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

Article about non-notable neologism which seems to exist to promote a research direction from one specific research group. TheDragonFire (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mull, Indiana

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

Appears to have been a short-lived post office, not a town. It certainly isn't one now. Mangoe (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moralist (disambiguation)

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

I seem to keep coming across redundant and unnecessary DAB pages like this. The entries include a WP:PTM (French Moralists); a redundant, superfluous, and frankly confusing reference to Wiktionary; an extremely niche video game faction; and a redirect from a phrase not used at its target that is at best a PTM anyway (Scientific moralist). In accordance with WP:PARTIAL, if this DAB page were cleaned up, all that would really be left are Moralism and The Moralist. I think a hatnote on the former acknowledging the existence of the latter will suffice. — Anonymous 02:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cabin Creek, Indiana (neé Scott Corner, Indiana)

[edit]
Cabin Creek, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

I have mixed feelings about this, in large part because it is an African-American place, and the documentation on these tends to be sketchy. The issue here, however, is that once again the article does not accurately relate what the thesis (which is the only source I could find outside GNIS) says about the place. The key failure is in the statement that "it was the home of several families [of] free African Americans", because it says that about the whole Cabin Creek Settlement. The "Scott's Corner" part pertains only to the store, due to the name of the proprietor. It doesn't actually say there was a town there, and it doesn't say that people lived at the corner. At least, that's how it reads to me. And it's basically an isolated intersection now, and furthermore, the aerials indicate that the two houses on the NE corner are recent, and that there was once another building on the SE corner which disappeared around 2010. It might have been the store at some point, or maybe not. It would be nice to find something else to go by, but for instance the county history (which was written early as these things go) doesn't mention it. So reluctantly I think this will need to go unless someone can find better verification. Mangoe (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced search for: 
"Cabin Creek, Indiana"
In books/documents 
Google Books
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
refseek
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives
Free English newspaper archives
In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal
The Wikipedia Library

Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central
Internet Archive
BASE  · Persée

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr

Batcycle

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

Pure plot summary and list of apperances; the bit on development is unreferenced and there is no reception, not even any listicles. Fails WP:GNG and my BEFORE failed to find anything that's not a plot summary. Since it's just plot, not seeing what we can do here except merge a few sentences (lead?) to Batman#Technology. (If anyone cares, Batsub was just blodly blanked and redirected looong time ago without any AfD... there was also a Batboat, I think). The concepts are mentioned briefly in the suggested redirect target - that's probably enough for now... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Daranios. Some decent hits, but nowhere near enough for a viable article, though viable merge targets exist. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

La calandria (1933 film)

[edit]
La calandria (1933 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced film article other than IMDB. Not clear this passes WP:GNG or WP:NFILM.4meter4 (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zulkarnain Saer Khan

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

The individual Zulkarnain Saer Khan partook in the orchestration of a dossier denominated All the Prime Minister's Men. Consequent to the helping of this dossier, he was the recipient of a commendation entitled the Global Shining Light Awards. The Global Shining Light Awards is bereft of eminence or substantial prestige in any capacity. The mere attainment of the Global Shining Light Awards does not fullfill the criteria of notability (person), as the dossier All the Prime Minister's Men itself fails to consummately fulfill the stringent prerequisites of notability.

Furthermore, the article is an absolute dearth of elucidation absent his academic credentials. Additionally, the article harbors superfluous and extraneous verbiage, including allusions to assailments perpetrated against his brother. Hydronex (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
But no other work by the individual in the article can be found apart from All the Prime Minister's Men, and All the Prime Minister's Men is neither a significant nor a well-known work. This means the individual does not fulfill point three of Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. Hydronex (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All the Prime Minister's Men is definitely a well-known work. It got wide coverage in Bangladeshi and some international media apart from Al Jazeera Media.[24][25][26][27][28] [29] Al Jazeera also won the top prize for "Best Human Rights Journalism" (investigation category) in the 8th annual Amnesty Media award for 'All the Prime Minister's Men'.[30] Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 09:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable journalist in Bangladesh. He is widely recognized for impactful investigative work with Al Jazeera and OCCRP. His contributions, media coverage, and awards meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria WP:NJOURNALIST.
— Cerium4B—Talk? • 11:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Cerium4B (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) Koshuri (グ) 13:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Koshuri Sultan, He hasn’t asked for any support in his favour. He has just asked me to take a look. Maybe because this article is related to Bangladesh. [31] — Cerium4B—Talk? • 14:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is the responsibility of those who vote keep to provide a solid argument. Nothing can be gained from canvassed or paid votes. The article is highly promotional and lacks neutral tone. It overemphasizes achievements while downplaying controversies, making it more like a PR piece than an encyclopedic entry. The subject fails WP:NBLP, as most coverage comes from sympathetic or affiliated sources rather than independent, in-depth analysis. NXcrypto Message 04:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source review would be helpful. But, at the least, this should be a redirect to All the Prime Minister's Men which I'm surprised editors arguing for Delete didn't mention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Dimitrov

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Silvia Dimitrov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable figure skater. Fails WP:NSKATE; no international senior-level medals, no national championships wins. On-line searches yield nothing beyond databases, scores, or a passing mention in articles detailing her previous skating partner, who went on to have more success than she did. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this article has already been brought to AFD (just last month) so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Super culture

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

"Super culture" doesn't seem to be an established term in anthropology. The book referenced actually says "To correspond with the term "sub-culture", a new term "super-culture" might be invented..." which suggests to me this is a term that was only used by few people. I don't think this warrants a redirect to "Culture", given that "Super culture" would be a very uncommon search term if it's not in use in anthropology. Kylemahar902 (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Miyagishima

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

Former mayor of Las Cruces, New Mexico, which has a population of ~110k. Looking at the List of mayors of Las Cruces, New Mexico, the only one besides Miyagishima who has a Wikipedia page is Albert Johnson, who is obviously notable as the first black mayor anywhere in New Mexico. I don't see an argument for why Miyagishima rises above the notability level of a standard Las Cruces mayor. Between the news coverage already cited on the page and what I could find on Google, everything seems pretty run of the mill to me. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kumawood

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

No evidence of notability. Three deadlinks and all but one of the remainder are affiliated or interviews. Only the BBC source reliably confirms the existence of Kumawood. Searches reveal social media sources but nothing that amounts to a WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   23:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet, but "keep" !voters are invited to share specific sources rather than asserting notability or linking to a list of search results.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Woodman

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

A promotional vanity page and almost certainly an WP:AUTOBIO by a non-notable individual. Fails WP:NOTRESUME, WP:NOTPROMO. Fails WP:GNG for lack of WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary, reliable sources. Fails all criteria of WP:NACADEMIC as a relatively junior researcher with a low to mediocre h-index of 7 and no evidence of passing on any other criterion. The sources are entirely limited to institutions with which he was or is affiliated, or to his own articles. WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing else qualifying. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for reasons given above. FYI: I and another editor removed large amounts of content - mine because my opinion was that it did not contribute to notability and the other editor stated reason as content was promotional. So the cuts were not of content that would support keeping the article. David notMD (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today&oldid=1238673950"