Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

5 January 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 04	January 06 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Chris Haddawy

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

Non-notable American businessman with no WP:SIGCOV to be found. JTtheOG (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Technology, and United States of America. JTtheOG (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of law enforcement agencies on Long Island

Also nominating:

These articles contain duplicate information from sections of List of law enforcement agencies in New York (state). It is repetitive and unnecessary. Law enforcement in Westchester County and Law enforcement in New York City should also be deleted for the same reason. Any summaries can be transferred from these articles to the state article or to Law enforcement in New York (state). - Joeal532 talk 20:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting list for the following topic: Organizations.

Southwestern University Soccer Field

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

Redirect to Southwestern University#Athletics. No evidence of independent notability for this NCAA Division III-level soccer field. JTtheOG (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Texas. JTtheOG (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pádhraic Ó Comáin

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

Nonnotable Irish scribe. --Altenmann >talk 18:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mícheál Ó Ceallaigh

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

Nonnotable Irish scribe --Altenmann >talk 18:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seán Ó Catháin

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

Nonnotable Irish scribe --Altenmann >talk 18:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:GNG and WP:NWRITER. While I have found/confirmed/added a number of sources to the article, none deal with the subject in any meaningful depth. To the extent that the only biographical information at all is a somewhat "throw away" comment in a piece by historian Nollaig Ó Muraíle - where he gives a very rough age (60ish) as of 1724. Otherwise the only "claim to fame" is that the subject was involved in transcribing someone else's work. While being able to read/write/copy someone else's work was probably far more significant (in the 1720s) than it might now be in the 21st century, absent other biographical coverage, it isn't enough to meet WP:NWRITER. Which, among other things, expect that someone would have "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant [..] or collective body of work". (Transcribing two works by Seathrún Céitinn isn't a "major role in co-creating a significant [..] body of work"....) Guliolopez (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Punch dimension

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

Non-notable fictional concept. The references included outside of primary sources only consist of trivial coverage, largely from content farms. Searches are not turning up any significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, making it a failure of the WP:GNG. I would have suggested redirecting it to Cyclops (Marvel Comics), except I don't think the name "Punch dimension" has ever actually been used in any official capacity in the comics, and is just a joke/meme name made up by fans. Rorshacma (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Rorshacma (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cyclops (Marvel Comics) as natural parent topic: Aside from the CBR, ScreenRant and BleedingCool articles used in the article, this Collider article also covers the Punch Dimension and asserts that it is "described in 1983’s Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe", i.e. not a joke/meme name made up by fans. Daranios (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The concept of Cyclops' power being powered by another dimension is not the made up joke/meme, its the name "Punch Dimension" to describe it that is. The actual quote from the 1983 Official Handbook on the topic is quoted in this article - note that the name "Punch dimension" does not appear in it. Merging is not necessary because the full description of Cyclops' powers, including the concept of it being generated by portals to a dimension of kinetic energy is already described in Cyclops (Marvel Comics)#Powers and abilities. And Redirection would not be appropriate as the name "Punch Dimension" is not the official name of that dimension in the comics themselves, and is not named as such in the Cyclops article. Rorshacma (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did I fly too close to the sun with this article? Perhaps. But was it worth it? Yes, yes it was. Er, I mean, I don't really object, because the name is a meme, but the dimension is real. Alliterator85 (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Johnson-Wheeler

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm struggling to see why this biography is notable. I understand that she is the daughter of a former British Prime Minister, but that isn't enough for a page in its own right. I can see that there are mentions of her in the media which she has participated in (i.e. she is not private person as such). However, I can't see why her biography is in itself notable. There is nothing about her life that I can see that would justify this page if it wasn't for the fact that her father was a British Prime Minister. Now that a few years have passed since her father was a Prime Minister, maybe it's clearer than when this article was previous nominated for deletion in 2021 as to why it isn't notable. It's interesting to note that on the page for Boris Johnson there is nothing about her apart from her name. Maybe a sentence about her in his personal life section might be sufficent rather than this whole article? Seaweed (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as WP:NOTINHERETED. Someone could, if they wished, add a little bit of detail about each of BoJo's progency on the article about him - I can see that was suggested in the last AfD where it was pointed out that she has only had coverage in relation to her being his daughter, and nothing has changed since. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 17:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Arts, Journalism, Fashion, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makrykano M1943

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

Draftified once already, then moved back to main space a few days ago by article creator. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no coverage of this weapon in reliable sources, just blogs, social media and fandom, and I can find no reliable means to verify that it ever existed. A merge to Chropei would be an adequate alternative to deletion, if we could find just one reliable source verifying that it's not a hoax. Wikishovel (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Greece. Wikishovel (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If I had to guess, I'd say the image originates from this ancient looking webpage from the Athens War Museum, as that's what the Youtube video credits. The image was presumably next to the text "Α-Τ Πυροβόλο 1943 (Μ. Βρετανία)", but the original may well have been lost to time. Quite how the YouTube content creator got the romanised name Makrykano, I wont speculate. My point is, that I don't think its a total hoax - but I'm not holding out for finding a great source either. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 18:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frédéric Harpagès

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and France. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Savchenko (footballer)

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been deleted twice before. There doesn't seem to be any meaningful improvement over the last two deletions. Still appears to fail WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Article also appears to be a victim of WP:REFBOMBing. I suggest a WP:SALT for this one. Anwegmann (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is Andriyrussu your alternative account? You have very similar names. It took me a few minutes to realize that this article was not created by you. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. I'm a bit taken aback that you would even ask. Anwegmann (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT to prevent further recreation. Oh dear... Not again... ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt – As GiantSnowman had already suggested in the last AfD. Lost cause. Svartner (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - which I suggested last time... Giant Snowman 18:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - before it comes back to haunt us again. CNC (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simeon Heinz

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

This Darts player has had a notability tag for over 6 years and I can't find SIGCOV to remove it. Failing GNG. Canary757 (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Germany. Canary757 (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, participated in Challenge Tours and qualified for 2 European Tours, but nothing really significant with no significant coverage. JamesVilla44 (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nejaru (Mother & daughter/son) Murder Case

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

Aside from the abhorrently formatted title, I was unable to find anything that indicates this passes WP:NEVENT. All sources I could find are breaking news, trial updates and low quality, though there could be more in non-English languages. If kept (I could very well be missing sources, Indian news never shows up in search for me) the common title is something like ""Udupi quadruple murder" and it should be moved to that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and India. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Olive Duck

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. All source is breaking news or trial stuff, no retrospection, once the trial was over it was seemingly never discussed again. Interestingly, not a case of recentism (all sourcing is from 1925) PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Australia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Won Jang

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

Fails WP:NEVENT, not in depth coverage or over a sustained amount of time. The only news since it happened was some people getting charged. ATD redirect to List of hazing deaths in the United States#2020s, where it is included (and, note, most of those deaths seem covered to the same degree as this and do not have articles) PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Connecticut. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Manchester Airport police incident

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

Doubtful that this passes NEVENT. All coverage is along the lines of this thing happened, with little depth, and mostly a flash in the pan type story. ATD redirect to Greater Manchester Police, since it's already mentioned there PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and England. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Doesn't seem to pass Wikipedia:Notability (events). The event's already covered in Greater Manchester Police so recommend redirecting there. XwycP3 (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Andreen McDonald

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. All coverage is very local, not in depth or analytical, and not over a sustained period of time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines because the subject has been covered by multiple independent, reliable, and non-local sources. While some may argue that the coverage is predominantly local, this claim does not fully reflect the range and scope of the sources cited,Atlanta Black Star,CBS News,Express News,The U.S. Sun and Fox News are definately not local. Although local outlets may have initially reported on the subject, subsequent coverage by nationally and internationally recognized media outlets suggests that the topic has broader significance. This aligns with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which prioritize significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Afrowriter talk 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. Sun is unreliable, CBS News has local branches (which is what the article is citing), Fox News only covered the case when it was a breaking news item in 2019 which does not help notability. Atlanta Black Star is better but still specialized (and further only one source, and the content isn't great to overc ome that), still almost entirely local. Per WP:NEVENT (which is meant to balance the fact that a lot of news is actually considered a WP:PRIMARY source, not counted for notability, without making it wholly unusable), just because something was reported as happening does not make it notable. It doesn't have to have all the aspects that indicate notability for NEVENT, but this is literally none. Further, there isn't enough depth of coverage to compensate for it. There is little to say. All the sources are when the event happened or the trial. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Kiaya Campbell

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. Coverage is entirely "thing occurred", with no analysis of how/why/what this means. The sourcing is very local and generally very poor, and not over a long period of time. After the perp was sentenced, pretty much nothing. YouTube videos from non RS do not help. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Elianne Andam

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

Fails WP:NEVENT, in that the coverage is largely routine and not in depth, or sustained. My prod was rejected because it was "potentially controversial" (as much as any prod ever is). There isn't anything to say besides it happened - no in depth background on why this happened, or what it means, and all coverage is very local. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The trial has only started recently. Also, there has been significant coverage already. --Lyndis Parlour (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and so this presents BLPCRIME issues. Just because something goes to trial or makes the news does not make it notable, since those kinds of news sources are WP:PRIMARY and do not count for notability (unlike reflective or analytical ones). It may be significant, but is not secondary. Please read WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There has been sustained and in-depth coverage on the BBC News website,[1] among other, more local news outlets. So I find your above statements not entirely fitting. --Lyndis Parlour (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a recounting of a trial - neither sustained nor in depth. Of course it will get covered when it goes to trial, as every publicized crime does. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. The stabbing has received wide coverage by the BBC (and other national news outlets) since 2023. How about we wait for other opinions? --Lyndis Parlour (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If true (it is not “wide coverage” by any means) that is not sufficient for event notability - the relevant guideline here is WP:NEVENT, which this does not pass. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voter turnout in the European Parliament elections

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

This article reads like an essay, and indeed was one written for a university assignment. The topic could probably be covered in sufficient detail in a new section in Elections to the European Parliament rather than being a heavily padded-out standalone article. Number 5 7 13:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are issues with this article, but deletion of this article is no solution as this is a topic worthy of retention on wikipedia BlunanNation (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The voice is certainly more academic than encyclopedic and I usually dislike new articles from students, but there's a decent amount of good content here, as well as a lot of solid sources specifically on the topic. Much better than most assignments I see! It could use clean up and trimming, but not cut so much that a merge makes more sense. Reywas92^Talk 16:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Elections to the European Parliament in a new section. The information is worth retaining and well sourced but more logical to include within the entry on the elections as a whole. ‪Ignatiusjreillythefirst‬ (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignatiusjreillythefirst (talk • contribs) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a much discussed subject with more than enough literature to support an independent article (cf. Voter turnout in United States presidential elections, Voter turnout in Canada). There is not space within Elections to the European Parliament to deal with the issue of turnout in anything other than WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, so I would oppose a merger. Furius (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jim_Leisy

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jim Leisy

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

I believe Jim Leisy fails the WP:GNG criteria. Not enough independent secondary sourcing to prove notability.

The majority of the article is unsourced self-promotion. According to the one reference in the article the artist won a 'Caldera Gold Spot Award' but I can find no explanation of what that is or how notable it might be. He also has a work catalogued by the Smithsonian https://www.si.edu/object/solar-eclipse:nasm_A20170021000 that was gifted by the artist.

Additionally, there appears to be WP:COI from Leisy himself, creating the page in the first place, removing other editors' issue taggs without fixing issues, and multiple edits of the page under User:Jimleisy.

SallyRenee (talk) 12:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing in the Getty ULAN [2], nor much of any mention for a photographer with this name. Nothing in the article shows notability. I don't find any book reviews. Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The COI editing doesn't help, but the subject has been deceased for a decade, I don't really think it matters much at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added two references. Leisy meets WP:PHOTOGRAPHER, in particular point 4D: the person´s work has been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. The Smithsonian, the Portland Art Museum, among others.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works represented in the Smithsonian, Portland Art Museum, and 'National Air and Space Museum' were all gifted by the artist, apart from one at Portland that I could find that was intentionally purchased with funds provided by the Photography Council (Leisy was on the board of directors - so there's clear WP:COI there): http://www.portlandartmuseum.us/mwebcgi/mweb.exe?request=record;id=70706;type=101 SallyRenee (talk) 09:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The works may have been donated by the author but the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people) does not make a distinction between purchased and donated works, so that is not a relevant argument. By the way, it is not at all easy to donate work to museums. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am leaning towards delete but not iVoting until I look deeper. I understand the nominator's thoughts about self-donated works in collections, however many institutions would still run a donated work through their acquisitions board; however in the case of the Portland Community College Collection, it's doubtful if they have one. The work in the Houston MFA seems to be donated by another person. The LensScratch article is a good source, however more like that are needed to meet NARTIST and GNG. A GoogleBook search found nothing. Netherzone (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After searching more, I think there is enough for him to meet notability standards. Here's what I found online: a comprehensive obituary: [3], article in LensScratch: [4], a comprehensive narrative about his work in the collection of the Smithsonian's Air & Space Museum [5], he's quoted here as an expert: [6]. These items along with the permanent collections (even tho several were donations by the artist), [7], however the work at the Portland Community College Collection was not donated by him [8], and has a decent narrative: [9]. The COI content or unsourced self-promo can be trimmed from the article; I think he meets notability, not in the strongest sense, but I do think he is notable. Netherzone (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Desi words

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

Poorly written article. If improved, it would still contradict WP:NOTDICT. Nxcrypto Message 12:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and India. Nxcrypto Message 12:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems to be a perfectly notable topic, see Scholar. Goes far beyond a Dictionary entry!!! -Mushy Yank. 01:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Furthermore in popular usage "Desi word" means totally different than what it's written in the article.CharlesWain (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete this article currently is indeed a dictionary definition. The article is also borderline original research. Also, we already have a full-fledged article at desi. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (really more a "Don't Delete"): Given the duplication between tadbhava and tatsama, I suspect that a merged etymological classes in Middle Indo-Aryan languages or similar article would be better (though that needs expertise - "Gramya"/"Desya" distinction? Continued use of classes for later Indo-Aryan languages?). In the absence of such an article, there's not a good redirect that I can see. A rename to "Desya words" might be ok. There's more than just dictdef-level coverage on GScholar / GBooks[10][11] ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Horae Beatae Mariae Virginis (Rps BOZ 44)

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

This specific manuscript does not appear to be notable, as there is only one source for it with anything approaching sigcov. There appear to be several other items with the same name, that may or may not be. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Željka Krizmanić

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Croatia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability, no sources provided and I cannot find any significant coverage of this skater. Would be interested to know why the PROD was removed as no reason given in the edit summary.
Shrug02 (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrug02: PROD was removed because this nom does not conduct BEFORE searches and refuses to address any actual coverage in their nominations. JTtheOG (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JTtheOG Fair enough. Thanks for the answer. Shrug02 (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Doneria

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

Non-notable BLP. Lacks significant coverage Wp:SIGCOV in multiple independent WP:INDEPENDENT reliable sources WP:RS. Zuck28 (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Hinduism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Leader of an organization with over 10 million members. (As per India TV https://www.indiatvnews.com/uttar-pradesh/bajrang-dal-neeraj-doneria-claims-its-members-saved-86-lakh-cows-from-being-slaughtered-love-jihad-against-hindu-woman-muslim-up-news-2023-05-28-873040) 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 04:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He is national convener, but not the leader (ping LordVoldemort728) who's the president of BD -- currently (?) Pravin Togadia [12]. Doneria appears to have no personal sigcov, and his only appearance elsewhere currently is at the BD article in its infobox as the organisation's head, which should be corrected. It may even be that not every past president of BD meets notabity requirements (ref WP:NOTINHERITED and the table at the article), though clearly many do. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being a convenor of any Notable organisation does not contribute to Notability of any individual. Taabii (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Barker

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

This has existed for 18 years without a single source which is actually about the actor, and I can't find any sources that are actually about her, as opposed to her being mentioned in articles about her father. Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~OK to delete (and recommend deletion rather than redirect, as there are other people with the same name who may be more notable).~~ There actually are more negative reviews of the play her father wrote for her, like "Daddy's girl could do without his help" in The Financial Times. But these are arguably not really about her (the FT review says things like "on this terrain it is hard to judge how good an actress she is"), and otherwise she is mentioned in passing in her father's obituaries and articles about her fugitive brother facing child porn charges. Does not meet WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no major roles, nor even supporting roles. Very minor roles in one well-reviewed film and a few guest spots on TV. Bearian (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article says "As an actress she worked mostly in theatre", but gives no details, apart from the play Mum. It's not hard to find reviews of her stage work in digitised newspapers - I will add info and references and then consider whether she meets WP:BIO or WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's kinder to delete. But I will bite and expand the article and let everyone else decide. (Perhaps there are 5k pageviews in the last month for a reason.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cielquiparle There is a TikTok "influencer" with the same name. Black Kite (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Plus everyone else with the same name, like the Director of Film Restoration at Paramount Pictures. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to give Cielquiparle and RebeccaGreen a chance to dig up more sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reelmonk

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - defunct streaming platform; not a unicorn; usual caveats for Indian media. This is really only of use for historical purposes. Bearian (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Licious

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Internet, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with the caveat that most Indian media nowadays is spoiled (pun intended), the coverage shows this is a unicorn company. Bearian (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probert Encyclopaedia

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

Cannot find much, if anything on this. Not opposed to merging or redirecting somewhere given how old the article is. If what is described in the article is true I am surprised this isn't notable, or that I cannot find mention of it somewhere. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mikihito Arai

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

Restored after a previous PROD deletion. Still no evidence of a WP:GNG pass. In my own searches, I found Gekisaka and Ameba, but neither of these are sufficient. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AntoloGaia. Sesso, genere e cultura degli anni '70

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

No reviews, does not pass WP:GNG or NBOOK. The "reception" is the book blurb. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Sexuality and gender. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Data Security Council of India

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

This non-profit organization fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Another alternative is to merge with NASSCOM. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Maybe Weak Keep, if others have strong reasons to not-keep) - Although the wiki page is not quite developed, seems notable and secondary sources are using information produced by them. e.g. see this and others at google search. Asteramellus (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Data Security Council of India (DSCI) meets Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline, Organization Notability Guideline, and Government Entity Notability Guideline.

Notability: DSCI is a government-recognized body and widely covered by reliable sources such as [India Today](https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/2024-a-year-of-data-leaks-espionage-and-ddos-attacks-ransomware-data-breach-2654230-2024-12-23) and Google News (https://news.google.com).
As an initiative by NASSCOM and endorsed by the Indian government, DSCI plays a significant role in data privacy and cybersecurity in India. While the article would benefit from better structure and citations, these are editing issues, not valid grounds for deletion. The article should be retained and improved, not deleted.

Cameremote (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 13:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nuvoco Vistas Corporation

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are some of the best sources I could find. Some coverage is from the time when the company was called "Lafarge India". I'm wary of paid news but the Indian sources don't seem to me to be paid or PR. [13] [14] [15] [16] Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Helpful Raccoon a SIRS table will surely make notability much clearer. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Nirma: I don't think the sources I listed above provide enough significant coverage for a standalone article. Only the article about its acquisition of Emami Cement plausibly constitutes sigcov. Note that the company was renamed from Lafarge India despite what the article Nirma currently says. (see [17]) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 13:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of civil disobedience

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

This is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of random examples of a very large concept, organized by country with some extra random sections on religion and climate change... it's a mess that is effectively a random list of poorly organized examples from the large category. It makes about as much sense as having examples of science fiction books or examples of famous people articles. If scholars discuss particularly famous cases of civil disobedience, those can and should be first covered in the main article, and split only here if we have too many such examples (which is not the case, this is just linked bizarrely from the "Choices" section of the main article, which is not about examples but about aspects of theory). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have lists already listing protests and riots. This list things that don't have their own articles, so aren't notable, just random examples by the whim of a single editor. There is Category:Civil disobedience, showing far more things on it than this list does, and has subcategories listing things into categories for three nations that have the most entries. Dream Focus 19:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We have an article about civil disobedience. A list of examples helps to explain that concept. The main article is already long, so a separate article makes sense. It could be renamed "list of" or somesuch, and inclusion criteria should be better documented, but I don't have a hard time seeing this as passing WP:LISTN. The topic being very large is a good reason to keep this split rather than list examples in the main article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of civil disobedience movements and keep. The main Civil disobedience is too big. Azuredivay (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Azuredivay We should first have an article on civil disobedience movement. Right now it is just a (bad) redirect. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But is that a distinct enough topic from civil disobedience? In that case, I have corrected the target of that redirect to Civil disobedience. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Civil disobedience. Azuredivay (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 13:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Returns from Troy

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

All of the references are primary sources - i can find no secondary sources about the concept, ie actual discussions of "returns from Troy". Doug Weller talk 08:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR; no significant coverage from secondary sources. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The returns from Troy are widely discussed, but more often with the term "nostoi" (which is also the name of a lost epic poem about the subject. one option might be to merge this into that, but they aren't actually the same because plenty of return myths cannot be surely traced to the lost epic poem). Examples of scholarly discussion:

Evelyn-White, Hugh G. (1910). "The Myth of the Nostoi". The Classical Review. 24 (7): 201–205. ISSN 0009-840X.
Malkin, Irad (1998). The Returns of Odysseus: Colonization and Ethnicity. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-92026-2., especially the introductory discussion of the importance of myths of return in the development of ancient Greek colonization.
Hornblower, Simon; Biffis, Giulia (2018). The Returning Hero: nostoi and Traditions of Mediterranean Settlement. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-253941-0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furius (talk • contribs)

Keep: For the reasons stated above. The problem is not that there is a lack of significant coverage; the problem is that it needs adding to the page. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The topic is notable, but this is obscured by the articles exclusive focus on ancient primary, sources rather than modern academic ones. Such as Hall, Edith. Return of Ulysses: A Cultural History of Homer's Odyssey. Iran: I.B.Tauris, 2008.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While it looks at first glance as though the assertion regarding lack of secondary sources has been refuted, the unsigned comments make me reluctant to close this as is. Some additional views assessing those sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 13:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are all sources by respected academics. Endlesspumpkin (talk) Endlesspumpkin (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Live Free Or Die: America (and the World) on the Brink

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

There aren't actually many proper reviews of this, though many mentions of its writing, so I am unsure if it passes WP:NBOOK. I wouldn't take much issue with it, but I want to resolve the notability tag. If not notable, redirect/merge to Sean Hannity. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Politics. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Living Textbook of Hand Surgery

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

I cannot find any indication that this specific work passes GNG or NBOOK. However, the "Living Textbooks" as a platform (which this was the launch of) might. If there are sources for that this could be turned into an article on that, but I am not sure there even are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Science. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SenzMate

AfDs for this article:

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

An article on an IT firm, which was soft-deleted a couple of months ago and then WP:REFUNDed on request of a new WP:SPA. I agree with Alpha3031's previous nomination rationale regarding the article references. Aside from the given sources, there is an Economy Next interview about the founders' AI aspirations "SenzMate: Enabling A Global AI-IoT revolution from out of Sri Lanka", 22 August 2022), which is effectively a primary piece insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. Clearly a firm going about its business, marked by local awards, but I am not seeing evidence that it has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Computing, and Sri Lanka. AllyD (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination. A smattering of industry awards isn't out of the ordinary for any business. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 18:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roanoke-Chowan Pork-Fest

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

A mere 2 google news hits. Fails GNG and WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Events, and North Carolina. LibStar (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Starovičová

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Slovakia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Kinčík

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Slovakia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Matloch

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Czech Republic. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LABA IT Training Center

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

Non-notable company. All sources are home pages of companies they've supposedly worked with, and I found no reliable sources online. Promotional in tone and borderline G11. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Nepal. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:NCORP. I've searched Google, No reliable sources. ~🌀 Ampil ^{「💬 / 📝」} 13:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4XO

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

Fails WP:GNG and has no SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and New Zealand. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hayes (radio presenter)

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

Non-notable person. None of the sources are independent, and I found no reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RadioToday is independent, as are the non-tabloid news websites cited. Companies employing Hayes aren't "dependent" on Hayes and so, in a way, are independent.

Jw93d59 (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biba Apparels

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Euro T20 Slam

The tournament is defunct without holding one season and in January 2025 it was replaced by the European T20 Premier League WP:GNG. Csknp (Talk) 14:57, 5 January 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 January 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.It's already mentioned at European T20 Premier League, and nothing more is needed. Athel cb (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, Ireland, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with European T20 Premier League, the ties don't seem super strong, but it seems (at least according to this RTÉ article) that the new league - which doesn't have as much information is available on the Euro T20 Slam page - is a somewhat direct successor of Euro T20 Slam. While I don't think it's noteworthy to have a standalone page, it is noteworthy enough to be included in its successor page. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Dollar

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

Does not meet notability guidelines, only local coverage. Sahaib (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Da Serra–American conflict

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

Article appears to be about a diplomatic tension that literally never meaningfully existed outside the in context of “between these years, there was a diplomat from Portugal”. The title of the article was invented for Wikipedia by the author and there’s no indication of historical significance or interest in this topic that warrants an entire article, and this is the third in a recent string of articles from this author with these problems. See also Portuguese Newfoundland and Luso–Danish expedition to North America or the Pining expedition and the associated AfDs for both. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already addressed the title issue on the talk page. Regarding notability, I believe the topic has merit, as it directly contributed to tensions leading to the attacks on Portuguese vessels and resulted in a U.S. Congressional Act to address these issues. I do believe it has its own historical significance, especially in the context of U.S. foreign policy.

Ultimately, I’ll leave it for discussion. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A search for "Da Serra–American conflict" only returns this AfD discussion and the article itself. I struggle to see how this passes WP:GNG and even the article doesn't highlight a conflict, just that diplomacy was taking place. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Portugal, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 U.S. House legislative coalition

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

I am creating this deletion request on behalf of the community, not because I actually believe this article should be deleted.

Just for some context, I created an early draft of the article and abandoned after getting feedback from others that it probably wasn't notable. User:Dcpoliticaljunkie found the draft and improved it. They nicely asked on the talk page if I felt it was ready to be moved to mainspace and I said it was.

More importantly, I believe that AFD is one of the few bureaucratic processes that actually work on Wikipedia. User:Antony-22 started a merge discussion, but I find that those discussions often don't get seen by the community at large. AFD is much more obvious and the discussion is generally more structured. A few other users have made comments on the article talkpage asking for the articles deletion.

I am leaving those comments and the merge discussion below. I will add my own !vote when I get some time, probably at some point tomorrow.

This is not a European-style legislative coalition, even an informal one. Unlike in parliamentary systems, in the United States it is common and unnoteworthy for legislation to pass with some votes from both parties. The idea that Republicans should try to pass legislation without any Democratic votes is a new one—even the Hastert rule didn't require that—and one that has not even been put into practice.

What this article does have is a good description of funding-related legislation during the 118th Congress, but that text is customarily in the article for each year's federal budget. I propose to move the text to 2024 United States federal budget and 2025 United States federal budget, and possibly other articles, as appropriate. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do an AfD right now but this article seems to be deletion worthy with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH violations. 1) the idea that there are any coalitions (and I use that term loosely) between fractions of the Republican and Democratic parties exist is dubious at best and outright false at worst. 2) the infobox, especially but not to the ideology section, makes claims that are not supported in any of the sources. 3) the article can't even agree who is apart of this "coalition". 4) this article synthesizes sources from the 2 speaker elections in 2023, the removal of Kevin McCarthy, and the various bills to stop a government shutdown to create a narrative unsupported by reliable sources TheMysteriousStar (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Better off to put this in the 118th congress page. 2600:1700:1850:81F0:94CB:F7E5:B61B:B6F1 (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Esolo5002 (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yissum Research Development Company of the Hebrew University

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

WP:PROMOTIONAL article for a subsiduary of Hebrew University of Jerusalem that doesn't seem to have any presence in it's own right per WP:INHERITORG. Current sources are, a database entry which doesn't establish notability. Times Higher Ed and Jewish Post (archived) do mention Yissum (they call it Aleph-Yissum in the THE article) but only in passing. Also cited NYT, Jewish Press and The Verge articles which don't mention Yissum at all. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Israel. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dotun Ajegbile

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

Fails WP:GNG and significant coverage cannot be established.
source 1 is a puff and promotional piece and part of the source farming explained in source 2.
Source 2 is part of the source farming of puff and promotional pieces published in the month of November. You can check this, this, this and this that did nothing than to praise him with different unverified claims.
source 3 is a LinkedIn post.
source 4 another puff piece. Ibjaja055 (talk) 07:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Games, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 07:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Absolutely nothing makes this pass WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG; problem on ilc issue. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 11:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, delete it. ONLY YOU nominated all my articles, why did you omit the ones I wrote on journalism in Nigeria? please add it and delete that too. you are enemy of progress. I have nothing to gain or earn writing articles for Wikipedia. It's out of share love for reading and writing. Your malicious intents to discourage me and prospective writers is noted. you can go ahead in your evil enterprise. delete the article, there is no trophy to be won in writing articles on Wikipedia. I have nothing to gain, so please your evil conscience, delete it. Akowe1975 (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please find to read WP:GNG, WP:N and WP:SNG and ensure that future articles meet one or more of the criteria stated there. Shoerack (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very much PROMO for a non-notable individual, puff pieces and the usual flowery language seen in Nigerian media. Nothing found for this individual we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That guy is one of the pioneers of SPORTS BETTING BUSINESS in Nigeria. The history of sports betting in Nigeria can't be written without mentioning his name. Too bad you don't know him. Infact I WILL NEVER MAKE ANY ARTICE ON WIKIPEDIA ANY LONGER, it's just waste of efforts. WHAT PROMOTION IS WIKIPEDIA DOING FOR SOMEONE WHOSE BUSINESS IS IN NIGERIA AND EXTENDED TO GHANA? As far as im concerned, (Personal attack removed), EFFORST ARE NEVER RECOGNISED. too bad. Akowe1975 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Betland

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Only 1 source is WP:GNG worthy. A WP: Before also revealed nothing than source farming of puff pieces. this, this, this and this were published in the same month and did nothing than to praise the owner with unverified claims. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Sports, Ghana, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, delete it. ONLY YOU nominated all my articles, why did you omit the ones I wrote on journalism in Nigeria? please add it and delete that too. you are enemy of progress. I have nothing to gain or earn writing articles for Wikipedia. It's out of share love for reading and writing. Your malicious intents to discourage me and prospective writers is noted. you can go ahead in your evil enterprise. delete the article, there is no trophy to be won in writing articles on Wikipedia. I have nothing to gain, so please your evil conscience, delete it. Akowe1975 (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NPA -1ctinus📝🗨 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, delete it. ONLY YOU nominated all my articles, why did you omit the ones I wrote on journalism in Nigeria? please add it and delete that too. you are enemy of progress. I have nothing to gain or earn writing articles for Wikipedia. It's out of share love for reading and writing. Your malicious intents to discourage me and prospective writers is noted. you can go ahead in your evil enterprise. delete the article, there is no trophy to be won in writing articles on Wikipedia. I have nothing to gain, so please your evil conscience, delete it. Akowe1975 (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tin Lok Lane

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

The reason why this article exists is unclear. It was prodded and deprodded over a decade ago for a vague reason. Even the Yue Chinese version has no sources. Searching Google in both Chinese and English seems to only yield results describing events and locations near the street, with nothing appearing to establish notability for the street itself. Notability is, of course, not inherited. Anonymous 06:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Anonymous 06:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Engineered constructs says:
Road networks: International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable. Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and may be notable if they satisfy the WP:GNG criteria, the criteria of another subject-specific notability guideline, or other criteria within this notability guideline.

Sources
1. Crisswell, Colin (1977-10-09). "The vanishing city: Tin Lok Lane". South China Morning Post. ProQuest 1529521148.
  The article notes: "At the start of Tin Lok Lane, about opposite Wanchai Road, is the last remaining houses of a row with a bawdy past. Before World War I this row housed somewhat faded blooms, many from Vienna, who rented their charms for the small fee of $2. ... Around the time of World War I, the Government opium factory was still situated at the end of Tin Lok Lane. Here, half naked coolies could be seen stirring pans of steaming opium. Tin Lok Lane translated means Lane of Heavenly Happiness and probably derives from these activities. ..."
2. "短街天樂裡" [Tin Lok Lane, Short Street]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). 2001-08-02. p. D5.
  The article notes: "至於極短的街道﹐灣仔區也有。如銜接摩利臣山道的天樂裡。好一條交通頻繁的行車馬路﹐卻僅得十間箾位。當眼的路牌也只有三個。又有誰知道﹐此即是百年前洋水手尋樂之地的天樂裡﹔而左轉橫街的鵝頸街市所在的一段灣仔道﹐據街坊說﹐當年也叫天樂裡﹗"
  From Google Translate: "As for very short streets, they are also found in Wan Chai District. Such as Tianleli, which connects Morrison Mountain Road. It's a road with frequent traffic, but there are only ten stalls. There are only three street signs that stand out. Who knew that this was Tin Lok Lane where foreign sailors had fun a hundred years ago? And the section of Wan Chai Road where Gooseneck Market, which turns left across the street, is located, according to neighbors, was also called Tin Lok Lane back then!"
3. "Transactions of the Second Biennial Congress Held at Hongkong, 1912". Far Eastern Association of Tropical Medicine. 1912. Retrieved 2025-01-05 – via Google Books.
  This article from the journal The International History Review discusses the Far Eastern Association of Tropical Medicine (FEATM):
  The FEATM became a forum-based regional organisation and held ten conferences from 1910 to 1938. The first, in Manila, saw the participation of seventy-six experts from 'India, Ceylon, Siam, Netherlands India, Federated Malay States, Straits Settlements, Hong Kong, Philippine[s] Islands, Tsingtau ([or Qingdao in China, represented by] Imperial German Government), and Japan'. It was a medical-expert organisation and governmental. Its member units were expert organisations located in countries in the region, with key positions selected by these organisations. Participants, however, represented their respective governments, rather than their professions. Many were colonial officers in charge of quarantine, or from colonial medical institutions. Invitations were sent through diplomatic channels. Governments funded the participants' travel expenses and a conference when their unit hosted it. In Asia—with the exception of Japan, China, and Siam—a majority of the administrative units were colonial governments, and they became the member units of the FEATM.
  The source notes: "There has been a curious tendency of late years to alter the names of certain streets which mark great epochs in the life of our Colony, and to confer upon them Chinese names. Thus the street leading from the Eastern Praya to the Happy Valley was known for very many years as "Observation Place", so named because at this very spot Captain Belcher, R.N., of H.M.S. Sulphur, who took possession of the island in January, 1841, took his first observations for latitude and longitude. It is now known as "Tin Lok Lane " which literally translated can only mean "Happy heaven lane", this may relate to the heavenly bodies from which the observations were taken, or more probably perhaps it refers to the fact that the street or more probably perhaps it refers to the fact that the street or lane leads to the Happy Valley; but in any case the neighbourhood is practically a European one and it is difficult to understand the reason for the change of designation."
4. "Wanchai traffic will ease". South China Morning Post. 1977-05-20. ProQuest 1529232043.
  The article notes: "Traffic flow in Wanchai is expected to be greatly improved when work on the widening of Tin Lok Lane and Morrison Hill Road is finished. A Government spokesman ... pointed out that Tin Lok Lane and Morrison Hill Road are important links for traffic heading for, the Cross Harbour Tunnel from Wanchai. "The roads are now heavily used and because of the location of the tram tracks along Morrison Hill Road and Tin Lok Lane, only two traffic lanes are available for buses and cars. ... He said that in addition, a signal controlled pedestrian crossing would also be provided at the junction of Tin Lok Lane and Wanchai Road."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tin Lok Lane (traditional Chinese: 天樂里; simplified Chinese: 天乐里) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage cited is not significant and the road is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Geschichte (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Minecraft spiritual successor

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

Suggest deletion, WP:DRAFTIFY or WP:MERGE under Minecraft, Minecraft (franchise) or Markus Persson as WP:ATD. Basically this is far WP:TOOSOON for a hypothetical game where coverage exists only in respect of some tweets made by Persson that he might make a follow-up. WP:GNG can't apply to something that doesn't exist and hasn't actually been announced and all information is coming from a single primary source. Some secondary sources are reporting on it and speculating what it might mean, but until there are details, this is in substance only information about what Persson is thinking. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever limited information exists for the meantime. This article is basically describing a handful of related events; it's hardly a good foundation for a proper article even when/if this does achieve notability. Anonymous 06:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Markus Persson. This is such an apparent case of WP:TOOSOON that this could be an example listed on the TOOSOON policy page. λ NegativeMP1 07:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Best not to tempt the outcome of discussion, but if there is consensus, perhaps it would be worth placing something like Pre-announcement coverage, such as about a developer revealing work on a game is planned or underway, is not sufficient information to support an article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I notice there's no VG specific guidance. Maybe that is something to think about. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, allow me to clarify: I was saying that as a hyperbole of how extreme of a TOOSOON case I think this is. I'm not actually proposing the idea of listing this as an example on the page, nor am I making any legitimate predictions regarding this discussions outcome. λ NegativeMP1 09:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! No worries, apologies for misunderstanding. I take things a bit too literally. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL, I don't even see the use of a redirect from such an ambiguous title. At this point it's essentially just a claim without real substance or even a legal basis to make it (or at least refer to it as Minecraft 2). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Obviously not notable yet. It's a proposal, and sure it is interesting, but only if the proposed game actually becomes a thing. Until further steps are taken, there is no reason it couldn't be summarised on Markus Persson. The fact that the title of this article is so vague and borderline meaningless, says a lot about how early it is. Gust Justice (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question Are there any examples of a standalone article for a merely proposed game/movie/show? Kevinishere15 (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.

Proposed games: Earthworm Jim 4, Fortress (cancelled video game), Thrill Kill.

Proposed films: Akira (planned film), Easy Come, Easy Go (unfinished film), Grass Roots (film)

Proposed shows: Coming to America (TV pilot), The Prodigy (TV series), Hieroglyph (TV series). Strugglehouse (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased media can be the subject of an article when significant coverage can provide reliable background about what is being discussed. The issue here is that there is no subject; the subject matter, being the idea Persson had to maybe make a Minecraft successor, is by nature only supported by coverage of speculation based on some tweets. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not the same at all. They accumulated years and years of continued coverage. This was simply a vague poll/social media post made a day or two ago. Sergecross73 msg me 14:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there's enough coverage at this point to make an individual article worth it. There are many other examples of articles that are just "proposed" ideas. This game will have a lot more coverage as it develops. Slight change of stance - Weak keep or Draftify and Merge Significant coverage seems to exist, and more is certain to develop as the game does. It just may be a little too soon for an article at this point, though. Should most likely be draftified, with the main points merged into Markus Persson, and split/converted to mainspace again once development continues. Strugglehouse (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"It will have coverage someday" is not an excuse to create an article now. See WP:CRYSTAL. An article based on tweets describing an idea is as WP:TOOSOON as it gets. Delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It already has tons of coverage. Strugglehouse (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:MERGEREASON. It violates most points. Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't too short nor does it duplicate another article. There exits lots of coverage already on it, so it's definitely notable. Strugglehouse (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is the article short, but it's crazy bloated out with fluff and filler content. Like half of it is just general background for Minecraft or Notch. And a good chunk of it repeats itself with an overly long intro. You could condense the actual meat about the actual subject down to about two sentences. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (keep redirect, I suppose). Fails WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. This game doesn't exist. Not even an in-the-works project. It's entire existence is literally a tweet. There isn't even a hint of WP:GNG. The sources are just sensationalized garbage churnalism at this point. — HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 13:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Persson's page. If this was something that had been discussed for many years with various notes on development throughout, then maybe there could be an article, but he just started talking about this yesterday, and only hypothesizing it. Absolutely no need for a standalone at this point. --Masem (t) 13:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per most points at WP:MERGEREASON, and WP:TOOSOON. Sergecross73 msg me 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hell (DC Comics)

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

Non-notable fictional location. News, Books, and Scholar turned up nothing about specifically DC's version of Hell, and the current article seems to be a nasty case of OR and SYNTH, since it combines many different interpretations of Hell from across DC canons into one article when they're unrelated to each other entirely, even in-universe. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:57, 5 January 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) 05:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katelyn Good

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

Non-notable figure skater. She won a gold medal at the 2010 Danish Championships, but there were only two teams competing, and other that that, <crickets>. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, Denmark, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Withdrawn by nominator based on on sources found by ARandomName123. ‎. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Levesque

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

At present, I'm having trouble finding sources to establish notability per NAUTHOR. A general Google search doesn't bring up useful information about the author, and I'm unable to find reviews in common sources, including Booklist, Publishers Weekly, and Kirkus. After checking the author's website, I searched for each book and couldn't find reviews; some didn't even appear indexed on Google Books. The one linked source in the article ([18]) comes off as very promotional, including referring to Levesque as "critically acclaimed". Either I'm missing something, or this is fluff. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Canada. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's a couple paragraphs of coverage in Gale's Contemporary Authors (here). Waiting for Aquarius has been reviewed in Books in Canada (here), The Globe and Mail (here) and awarded the Stephen Leacock Memorial Medal for Humour, while Stranded on the Information Highway was also reviewed in The Globe and Mail (here) and the Star-Phoenix (here). There are also a couple of reviews for the other few books. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you find the article very promotional is because it is a news release from the association giving him the award/title. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I believe that Mr. Levesque is the only Leacock Medal winner without a Wikipedia page. His most celebrated work and profile came as a journalist in the early 1990s. I would hope it can be kept. Thanks Dick Bourgeois-Doyle (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sara Twete

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. No senior-level competitions of any kind. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Denmark. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eduard Halstyan

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

Another Chernihiv player who appears to fail WP:GNG. Several searches in English and Ukrainian brought up nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV, and all the sources in the article are passing or database. Anwegmann (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite 48 appearances in the lower professional leagues of Ukraine, I can't find any SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - has anyone tried searching for results by his name in Armenian? Translation gave me this: Էդուարդ Հալստյան. Google search provided around 440 results. If anyone finds a greater amount of WP:N within this search then I'd slightly lean to Keep and improve. Archives908 (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using that name, I can find some decent coverage of Eduard Spertsyan but nothing about Halstyan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andriy Veresotskyi

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

Likewise, this player brings up nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV in English or Ukrainian. Everything is databases or local—and even in the latter, as far as I can find, there is nothing meaningful. Fails WP:GNG, as far as I can tell. Anwegmann (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't have any SIGCOV that I can see. I found a squad list mention in Sport Arena but nothing better. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andriy Lakeyenko

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

Like with others, nothing meaningful came up in either English or Ukrainian searches, much less anything that hinted at WP:SIGCOV. As such, this player fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with the nominator. I can find a few bits of match coverage and some 'Team of the Week' stuff but nothing that merits an article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wassertorplatz

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

Fails GNG for not having SIGCOV from an Independent, reliable source for verification. Cassiopeia talk 02:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 02:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the area is clearly referenced in a number of scholarly publications and books, I'm not sure why verification is even an issue here. SportingFlyer T·C 18:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August Capital

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Tagged for multiple issues. Was previously deleted per AFD. Imcdc Contact 03:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 03:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:NORG and WP:SIRS). QEnigma talk 16:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously brought to AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tons of coverage that goes back to before the millennium. There's more than a dozen articles in the Wall Steet Journal which detail deals made: [19], [20], [21]. There's New York Times coverage as well: [22], [23], [24], [25]. Plenty more sources out there. This is just from a few minutes search. Thriley (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CORPDEPTH. These are funding announcements (1+2+4+5), brief hiring news (3) and a brief mention (6+7). These would be considered routine trivial coverage. Could be just regurgitation of press releases. No considered in depth enough to fulfill WP:ORGCRIT. The requirements for WP:NCORP are a lot more stringent now and simply having a bit of coverage is not enough to prove notability. Imcdc Contact 06:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you really spend more than a few minutes looking into potential sourcing? Thriley (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the type of coverage that is expected for a firm like this one. It demonstrates that billions of dollars has passed through it over the last 30 years. Thriley (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: You added a source from Fortune to the article . Are you seeing the widespread coverage I am seeing? Thriley (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While a firm with a large AUM is expected to be notable, it is the independent in-depth sources that determine notability per WP:NCORP. Just saying an investment firm has raised XXX amount alone is considered routine since they all need to do that since how else are they going to get money to invest? Speaking of AUM, August Capital has supposedly $1.3B to $2B AUM. Meanwhile BOND has $6B AUM and Accel-KKR has over $20B AUM and they both got deleted. Imcdc Contact 17:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a source assessment, especially of newly found sources, would be helpful as there is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources listed provide only routine coverage, including the one from the Wall Street Journal. Aona1212 (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Fund, Bret R.; Pollock, Timothy G.; Baker, Ted; Wowak, Adam J. (2008). "Who's the New Kid? The Process of Developing Centrality in Venture Capitalist Deal Networks". In Baum, Joel A. C.; Rowley, Timothy J. (eds.). Network Strategy. Advances in Strategic Management. Vol. 25. Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing. pp. 563–593. doi:10.1016/S0742-3322(08)25016-3. ISBN 978-0-7623-1442-3. ISSN 0742-3322. Retrieved 2025-01-05.
  The book notes on page 566: "We then introduce our process model of centrality achievement and summarize the history and evolution of two venture capital firms – Benchmark Capital and August Capital – to illustrate the elements and relationships in our model."
  The book notes on page 574: "August Capital (August) was founded by partners David Marquardt and John Johnston, two former partners of TVI whose early stage investment experience prior to founding August included investments in Microsoft, Adaptec, Compaq, Sun Microsystems, Seagate, Intuit, Sybase, Visio, Actel, and ViewLogic. David Marquardt is a prominent and high-status member of the VC community; he was a co-founder of TVI and the lead VC for the Microsoft deal. To this day he continues to serve on Microsoft’s board."
  The book notes on pages 574–575: "In the simplest terms, August seemed to take its time, moving at a very deliberate pace. In the several months following the close of its inaugural fund, August made only one small investment for about $1 million (representing approximately 1% of its total fund). Our reading of a variety of contemporary descriptions of August’s behavior and our examination of their investment behavior suggests the self-confident manner of a ‘‘master of the universe’’ that felt little urgency or compulsion to hurry in making investments and putting the new firm on the map."
  The book notes on page 572: "As the two firms entered their second year, August continued its more conservative approach and made no additional investments in the first three months of 1996. It appeared, rather, that the August partners continued to work with ventures they knew from their TVI days but in which August had not yet made investments. Finally, in April of 1996, August invested along with six other VC firms in Be, Inc., a company that TVI originally funded in 1992."
  The book notes on page 584: "August’s first two funds (with a combined total of $300 million) were fully invested in 34 companies by 1999. Overall, August invested in 44 companies from 1995 to 2000 with an average investment of $6.8 million. Among these companies were big names such as Epinions.com, Cobalt Networks, and Be, Inc. As Fig. 5 shows, during our period of study seven of August’s investments underwent initial public offerings (IPOs). The median return for the seven firms that August took public was 585%. Their two most successful IPOs during this period were Cobalt Networks and Silicon Image. August’s investment of $10 million in Cobalt Networks was worth $336 million at the end of the day Cobalt went public – a 3,360% return. Silicon Image was similarly successful; August’s $8.3 million investment in this firm was worth $119 million after the first day of trading, generating a 1,444% return."
2. Primack, Dan (2019-01-02). "A look inside the trouble at Silicon Valley's August Capital". Axios. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2025-01-05.
  The article notes: "Silicon Valley venture firm August Capital held its annual holiday dinner on Dec. 6. The mood was festive, not only because of the season, but also because August had recently held a first close on its eighth fund after an unusually arduous process. Four days later, the firm effectively imploded. ... Background: August Capital was founded in 1995 by investors who had written some of the earliest checks for tech icons like Microsoft and Compaq. ... August was so successful for so long that it never really had to fundraise in the traditional sense. Instead, it could just send out an email to investors and hold a quick close. But that changed in 2018 with its efforts to secure $250 million for Fund VIII. Some LPs were still upset with how fees were handled on August's under-performing sixth fund, while others were curious about partnership stability given that two longtime GPs (Howard Hartenbaum and Vivek Mehra) were out and 2 newer GPs (Tripp Jones and Villi Iltchev) were in."
3. Roberts, Bill (May 2000). "The chip-friendly VCs". Electronic Business. Vol. 26, no. 5. Reed Business Information. pp. 72–82. ProQuest 194235753.
  The article notes: "August Capital may be the best kept secret in Silicon Valley. It was cofounded in August (hence the name) 1995 by Marquardt, a Silicon Valley legend and the only VC who invested in Microsoft Corp. 19 years ago. It now has three funds totaling nearly $700 million, with more than $1.5 billion in assets under management. ... Rappaport joined the firm in 1996. The other general partners are John Johnston, the other cofounder and a former partner at Technology Venture Investors (TVI), also in Menlo Park, and Andrew Anker, who was co-founder and CEO of Wired Digital Inc., San Francisco, a news and media organization that launched the first advertising Web site. Mark Wilson, administrative partner, and Won Chung, research partner, round out the senior team.August Capital thrives on early stage funding, preferably as lead investor, in companies like Genoa that seek to fundamentally change their industry. ... August Capital's only disaster was DigiCash, which was developing infrastructure for electronic payments over the Internet. ... It entered Chapter 11 in late 1998 and emerged in 1999 as eCash Technologies Inc., Seattle."
4. Primack, Dan (2014-09-26). "Exclusive: August Capital leaving "opportunity" on the table". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2025-01-05. Retrieved 2025-01-05.
  The article notes about "“opportunities funds": "But Fortune has learned that one of the practice’s originators, August Capital, is going in the other direction. Back in 2000, August took advantage of an opportunity to participate in a $2 billion buyout for hard-drive maker Seagate. The only problem was that its commitment took up around one-third of its fund, which is an exceptionally high percentage. So August later decided to begin raising $250 million side vehicles to handle such deals, and has done so for each of its last three fundraises (no fees are charged on the side-funds until capital is called). But when August returns to market later this year to raise its sixth fund, there will be no sidecar."
5. Garland, Russ (March 2015). "VC Profile: August Capital Shifts to Single-Fund Model to Maintain Its Focus on Value Investing". Private Equity Analyst. Archived from the original on 2025-01-05. Retrieved 2025-01-05 – via ProQuest.
  The article notes: "Although some venture firms have turned to side funds to make large, growth-oriented investments, August Capital has gone in the opposite direction.The early-stage venture firm, which participated in the 2000 buyout of Seagate Technology LLC, had raised a special opportunity fund as a companion to each of its prior three funds. With its latest, $450 million pool, however, it returned to a single-fund approach. ... The Seagate investment was the catalyst for August's first special opportunity fund. That deal wasn't a natural for what is primarily an early-stage venture firm."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow August Capital to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; meets WP:NCORP via the sources identified by Cunard. Another source is this 3000+ word profile:

Rao, Leena (2014-06-14). "Sand Hill Road's Consiglieres: August Capital". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2025-01-05.

Jfire (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Khair University

AfDs for this article:

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

It does not meet the criteria of WP:ORG or WP:GNG. The article was deleted in 2020 and recreated in 2021, but in my view, the school has not achieved sufficient notability to justify recreating the article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a ton of WP:NEWSORGINDIA to sift through but I found this. Their notability may be from being part of a diploma mill.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um ... WP:NEWSORGINDIA is not about Pakistan. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable diploma mill. Scammed a lot of innocent students, attracted a lot of media coverage, and even military official received its degree to become NAB director. Very notable per CNMall41. 103.194.93.34 (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than adequate sourcing available to satisfy the GNG + a bit of HEY...not sure how it's possible to miss the multiyear coverage of this notorious institution. While AfD is not clean up, the article could not be left to stand as it was and I have cleaned it up. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing I can find meet the GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. It hit the news at one stage for being a diploma mill but most of that coverage was focussed on the crime, not the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"at one stage"? There's multi-year RS coverage going back a decade (and more) in English (I've not done any searching in Urdu): eg 2021 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2015, 2004. Whether focussed on "crime" or "company"(?) (it's a university), the content of the coverage is not relevant to notability questions. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect to say that "the content of the coverage is not relevant". The guidelines that apply to companies/organizations (private universities) is GNG/WP:NCORP. See WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH which clearly speak to the *content* - for example, a requirement is for in-depth information *about the company* and the article must contain *independent* *content*. We don't care about the volume of "coverage", we actually care about the quality of content in order to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Worth noting previous deletion was a soft delete on PROD/TNT basis, notability was not discussed. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'll also note that the previous AFD had participation from only one editor, the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Private universities should meet WP:NORG, which means that we need significant coverage at WP:ORGDEPTH about the institution. We have quite a lot of news coverage about the university, which, for instance, set up illegal campuses [26] and was indeed a diploma mill per the above. Coverage such as this [27] does indeed mention the university, but not at ORGDEPTH. This is a general problem. The sources are all about the mismanagement and illegal activities and not about the university itself. My feeling is that we don't have the sources for a university article, but we do have the sources for an article about either diploma mills in general, or perhaps about the event of this diploma mill in particular - and moreso because it seems to have created a bit of a storm in its resolution. I would be open to redirect targets. But I really cannot decide between straight delete of this article (which has nothing worth saving) or keep with the assumption this could be renamed and repurposed. The problem with deletion is not that the article would be deleted, but that the sources found in the AfD would lose visibility. The problem with keeping the article as it is lies in the possibility that this might languish and then be developed as if the encyclopaedic subject is the university, rather than the scandal. I am also reluctant to add a keep !vote when I think no consensus may be a better outcome. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the result of the first discussion was soft delete means if some one want to work on it he can make an un deletion request. It was deleted back in 2020 and so far its notability has improved considerably. Behappyyar (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A source review would be helpful as, at this point, there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Based on my views, none of the sources qualifies for WP:INDEPTH coverage. Most are routine coverage of controversies about fake degrees, non-recognition, and other incidents, and they are not qualified for WP:NSCHOOL. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 11:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Harvard Ichthus

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

Can't find WP:SIGCOV for this, article mostly relies on primary sources. Side note, the article's tone is also a little inappropriate for an encyclopedia; makes persuasive arguments. seefooddiet (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Schools, and Massachusetts. seefooddiet (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of virus species

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

Potential violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY or WP:NOTDATABASE. The article is extremely long and continually loses utility as more virus species adopt binomial nomenclature. Updating the article has become infeasible due to the massive number of species. A similar discussion was held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mammal species and was resolved by redirecting to the genus article, but the article List of virus genera has most of the same issues as this one. A past discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of viruses voted to keep this article but the circumstances surrounding the article have greatly devalued the worth of this list since then. Velayinosu (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Organisms. Velayinosu (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of virus genera, as we did with mammal species. I don't buy that virus genera is too unwieldy, it's not that long. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of virus genera; this is exactly parallel to the List of mammal species case, only worse in practice (as the number of virus species is presumed to be much larger). There's no benefit in an alphabetical omnibus list when we have rationally organized sub-lists. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - List of virus genera is just as useless. Graham Beards (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of virus genera as mentioned above, I don't see the need to delete it. --SimmeD (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lifestyle Center La Gran Via

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

Just a generic shopping mall. Nothing here to indicate that this mall passes WP:ORGCRIT as a business or WP:NBUILDING as a building.4meter4 (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of feudalism

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

This seems to be a WP:CONTENTFORK of feudalism, with seemlingly randomly chosen case studies (WP:INDISCRIMIANTE), haphazardly grouped (particularly considering the weirdly named section "Modern traces" which seems to be "random stuff that did not fit into the two other sections"). There is no need for such an article to exist; at best it can be redirected/merged to the parent article (WP:ATD-R, WP:ATD-M). The main article on feudalism is actually not too long, and is missing a 'by country' overview, which seems to be the way this organized, so merge might be best. If kept as a separate article (but why?), this needs to be renamed, although I am not sure how (Feudalism by country?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was somewhat astonished upon checking the revision history statistics to find myself top editor by character count, despite having edited only one section over the summer (and probably due to the citations I added). This article already seems like it was split off from Feudalism as a daughter article, which I think it sort of might have been?
I think the main problem here (this topic) is that feudalism is a term with a specific technical meaning, but its meaning has been broadened over the years to apply to a number of systems of territorial administration that are not technically feudal, but where the feudalism label can act as a useful heuristic. The main article doesn't do a great job differentiating what feudalism ism and isn'tm, and the article under discussion here serves that purpose, as well as hosting a bunch of hatnotes that would probably otherwise end up in a list article somewhere or in Feudalism#See also.
I'm not 100% on straight merging into Feudalism: I think the examples of legit, consensus feudal societies could be worked into the main article, but without counterexamples of not-quite-feudal societies (which don't really belong in the main article), it will act as a magnet for that stuff. I'm real big on the concept of excellent list articles (like Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway), which I propose at every major notability discussion about our surfeit of microstubs (like WP:LUGSTUBS et seq.), and this article has the potential to become a great list article. It almost is, except for the title and structure. I also recognise I absolutely will not have the time to restructure it into an excellent list article unless this discussion is relisted at least four times. So I could see any of the following actions: retitle, partial merge, complete merge, temporary redirect until it can be sorted out, or keep.
For now, Folly Mox (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is No consensus here at all, just a multitude of suggestions. User:Folly Mox do you have one outcome that seems primary to you?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right I'm supposed to follow up on this! I think the optimal outcome is a good list, maybe titled "Feudal and semifeudal political systems in world history" or something more concise, with or without a leading "List of".

As foretold, I have not had the time to work on this. Maybe in the interim we can draftify the article as written, and temporarily redirect the title to Feudalism till it gets cleaned up?? Or toss a {{listify}} template at the top, move to a new title, and leave in mainspace for improvement?? I'm sorry I'm not more decisive here: as mentioned, I only really edited this article in one period several months ago. I was expecting more participation. Folly Mox (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Possible outcomes suggested are Deletion, Merge, Redirect or Draftify. We need more participants to weigh in here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - lots of sources exist to write an article about examples of feudalism. The current page appears to be poorly written and contain a significant amount of personal opinion but it seems undeniable that the topic would be notable. I don't really see why there is a problem with forking the main page and allowing this one to develop. JMWt (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanganya orthohantavirus

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

The format "name orthohantavirus" is an obsolete taxonomic naming convention that was replaced with binomial nomenclature. Tanganya virus has never been recognized as a species[28] and is still unclassified,[29] so it has never had the name "Tanganya orthohantavirus". PubMed search for Tanganya virus[30] versus Tanganya orthohantavirus.[31] An article already exists for Tanganya virus and I have already merged all of the information on "Tanganya orthohantavirus" into "Tanganya virus". Velayinosu (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Organisms. Velayinosu (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tanganya virus. All the information can be suitably presented there, there is no reason for this extra article on a "putative" species that was never formally described. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tanganya virus. The phrase "Tanganya orthohantavirus" appears in doi:10.3389/fcimb.2020.00438 which was published 26 August 2020. This Wikipedia article was created on 1 December 2020. I would be inclined to favor deletion as a Wikipedia neologism if there were no uses of the term prior to the creation of the Wikipedia article, but that is not the case. Plantdrew (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tanganya virus: Refer to the same virus, it's just a naming precision and context of use. --SimmeD (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of in vitro transdifferentiation by lineage-instructive approach

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

This appears well-referenced, but no reference mentions the term "lineage-instructive" in their heading. It is not obvious this meets WP:NLIST. Further, there is no criteria given for why those particular examples are included (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Perhaps per WP:ATD-R this could be merged and redirected to transdifferentiation, which is not too long. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Back in May 2012, User:Ilee0913 created two articles, this one (Examples of in vitro transdifferentiation by lineage-instructive approach) and its sister Examples of in vitro transdifferentiation by initial epigenetic activation phase approach. The pairing makes it clear that the odd phrasing is simply a marker for the different selections in the two articles. As nom says, the sourcing is robust. It may be that the two could simply be merged, with 'By lineage-instructive approach' becoming one chapter, and 'By initial epigenetic activation phase approach' becoming another chapter. In that case the merged article should be titled Examples of in vitro transdifferentiation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap I think "Examples of..." is a pretty bad type of Wikipedia article (almost as bad as "Instruction to..."). Merge is a good idea, but why hot merge both to transdifferentiation? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, if it doesn't unbalance the article under a load of examples. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap Well, is a list of examples even encyclopedic? Smacks of WP:OR. What criteria has been used to select these examples? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the criteria will disappear under a merge, so the question is academic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support to a Merge and also to determine what the Merge target article is actually being suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't merge: I'm sorry to derail the growing Merge consensus, but the content of this article simply isn't encyclopedic. Transdifferentiation gives a summary of the methods used to induce transdifferentiation, with a few well-chosen examples (though we should delete the "Here is a list of examples" statements from that article). This list is a bunch of context-free citations to primary literature; anyone who understands what each entry means would probably consult a review article, rather than Wikipedia, if they need examples. Redirect seems pointless because this is such an unlikely search term. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

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

With a recent expansion of what is considered "unrealized", it's really gotten to a point I have realized these articles largely stand to be rather WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. As higlighted by @Erik:, "if a so-called "unrealized project" is not talked about in retrospect, it has little value", and as per WP:IINFO, ""To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Just a contemporary news article about a filmmaker being attached to so-and-so, with no later retrospective commentary, does not strike me as discriminate encyclopedic content to have". Having created this particular article myself, I no longer see this page being of note, and is just a trivial list of several projects, whether they were notable or not, that never came to be, their development or attempted production not being of vital note. Rusted AutoParts 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Lists, and Italy. Skynxnex (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A perfectly standard page, with sources. WP:SPLITLIST applies. -Mushy Yank. 01:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: A good article, well formatted and written out and perfectly and completely worthy of it's own existence, with enough projects to constitute having an article of it's own to compile them all. Therefore, it is indeed a "page of note" and unworthy of deletion. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Burn it to ashes, and then burn the ashes, per WP:LISTCRIT (what constitutes "unrealized" is horribly vague), WP:NOTGOSSIP (so-and-so was rumored to be working on such-and-such), and the really excellent nomination statement. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Luca Guadagnino – similar to my !vote at the AfD for David Ayer's unrealized projects, these types of projects can be covered better within the context of the filmmaker's entire career (see WP:PAGEDECIDE). Some of these projects are fairly trivial and could be cut, but that can be resolved through normal editing and discussion processes. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number of projects is too vast to merge. And too many of them are "of note" to warrant "cutting" as you suggested. As I've said before, this belief of "irrelevance" of these articles is just incorrect. I see no difference than if it were a career biography. In a career bio, bits and pieces of information are taken from various sources to sum up a person's career, and for an Unrealized Projects page, various pieces of information about films/projects that were unproduced are taken and compiled together. A career bio, should include information from that person's career, and ideally, if they're a filmmaker, have a note or background on every film they made. This is true of most articles. Every film is listed out and explained in order. So therefore, for a page which Unrealized Projects is the main subject, everything should be included that is KNOWN. Just as with a career biography ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page size of Luca Guadagnino is about 2500 words; this page is about 1500 words, which could easily be fit into that article (the general threshold to consider a WP:SIZESPLIT is somewhere around 6000 to 8000 words). And many of these sections could be trimmed; we don't need beat-by-beat details of the production history (actor announcements, writer announcements, etc.). For instance, there is as much coverage of Rio here as there is about Bones and All in the main biography, even though the former was just an announcement and the latter was a project he saw all of the way through. Hence why I feel this information could be incorporated into the main article about his career. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I feel there are so many that they warrant having their own page. Many and several of these projects have also been mentioned in MANY outside sources "as a group or set" and therefore satisfies WP:LISTN. Case in point. I'm just a broken record here at this point. No special reason for this article to be deleted. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The article is written appropriately and the current definition of "unrealized" is quite vague. Deleting this article would also give the precedence for deleting dozens of other articles that have the same features, such as Martin Scorsese's Nils2088 (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Nil2088 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN. This list has been discussed “as a group or a set” at ThePlaylist.net and The Film Experience. The Film Creator (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that The Film Creator (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
I don't think those websites are referring to this page, they're referencing the projects independently. Wikipedia is not mentioned in either source. Rusted AutoParts 18:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The projects have been discussed as a group or set and published in articles, and are therefore worthy of having their own Wikipedia page. That was the entire point. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They literally said "This list"..... Even then, just talking about a failed project doesn't make the histroy of that project that important, unless the project is a long gestating one. Such as the production history for The Flash, or the development on the Akira live action remake. Rusted AutoParts 19:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As in, the actual projects featured on "this list". ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the expansion of my comment. Rusted AutoParts 19:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's an opinion. More information could come into light in the future about each project. Some projects have loads of information, others do not. Just as career information in a career bio has an abundance of information, and others do not. This does not mean the others should not be included. Case in point. Since the projects are listed "as a group or set" in many, many, many other articles, the list passes WP:LISTN. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of Guadagnino's unrealized projects are tiny blurbs. The only ones that stand out as noteworthy are Find Me, maybe Scarface and Brideshead Revisited. Buddenbrooks, Lord of the Flies, Leading Men, Sgt. Rock and American Psycho are all projects he is still noted as working on, thus making them unapplicable to the page. Why is it pertinent to know that he was once attached to a film called Burial Rites in 2017, but nothing ever came of it? Why Swan Lake? Being a list doesn't inherently make it notable or necessary. We used to have a list of all the films granted permission to film during the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike, it was eventually removed because it wasn't noteworthy. Rusted AutoParts 19:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of the last example you mentioned. I would agree with that removal, because the films were granted permission to be 'realized'. However I would pose the question if there is a section of all the projects that were officially cancelled and never picked back up again as result of the 2023 strike? That would be a section to warrant keeping/having. Again, I'm not sure how else to explain it, just like a filmmaker's career bio lists out the background of every film they worked on (no matter how little the film, compared to how big the film, or how little information there is on this subject, as opposed to the amount of information on the other), they should still all be included because it is apart of the director's career. The same is true of unmade films, if it was an idea they had and was mentioned in an article-list it, official offers-list it, a project they worked on for five years-list it, a one-off article mentioning a project they were attached to-list it, etc. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note that @ZanderAlbatraz1145: is currently canvassing for votes. See here. Rusted AutoParts 19:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here as well. Rusted AutoParts 19:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And again. 2 of the 3 messaged have voted inline with Zander. Rusted AutoParts 19:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverted my close and relisting per requests on my Talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since canvassing occurred here, I was hoping to see additional participation in this AFD since its closure was reverted but that hasn't happened yet. I'll try an additional relisting but any admin closer is welcome to close this discussion if they believe they see a consensus that is not unduly influenced by the canvassing. I realize that this AFD has been open for several weeks now but I think an appropriate closure is more important than a speedy one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Luca Guadagnino, per RunningTiger123. All of the content here that can be merged into Luca Guadagnino after trimming and condensing sections. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as the article passes WP:LISTN since these projects have been published in outside sources in which they are described "as a group or a set" such as ThePlaylist.net and The Film Experience. Additionally, I have also found this one and this one in which Guadagnino himself discusses a couple of his 'dream projects'/past projects, as well as this one which discusses them as prospective, as in 'recent', unproduced or not. He also discussed some of his past, present and possible future dream projects in this 2018 NY profile. It has also, while not 'official', has been a frequent topic of discussion in other forums such as this Reddit post in which they are broken down. Another reason why this topic is worthy of having it's own page, as it's being discussed amongst other groups separate from Wikipedia. This article also breaks a couple of them down, Separate Rooms and Scarface, and on and on... In this IndieWire article, Guadagnino is "especially" mentioned as being a notable director "whole filmographies of projects they started developing before eventually abandoning." ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xylem Learning

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

This company does not meet WP:NCORP requirements. The sources are merely press releases and therefore, not independent as they fit the description listed at WP:NEWSORGINDIA and they do not provide the stringent sourcing required to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The rest of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE due to physicswallah investing in the company. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to resolve it United Blasters (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Technology, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Requesting you to not to delete the article. And inviting more editors. United Blasters (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolis

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

This article has lots of references, but there is no definition of "metropolis", so it is essentially a discussion of the etymology and a prose list of some big cities. The etymology belongs on Wiktionary, not as a WP article. The list is far less useful than List of largest cities and the like, since there are no clear criteria for inclusion. There is no potential for the article to grow beyond this, because unlike mega city and megalopolis, there is no agreed definition for "metropolis"; it's just a synonym for "big city".

(Any deletion would probably involve merging or redirecting with Metropolis (disambiguation), which obviously should remain) Furius (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Economics, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This might be a case of WP:TNT but I don't think we will benefit much from deletion. Shankargb (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that once WP:TNT was complete there would simply be nothing left. What do you think would be the content of this page after clean up? Furius (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Metropolitan area. Agree with nom that there's no consistent definition and little substantive overview content, most of which is redudant to what's in the other article. Many of the country-by-country listings are pretty blah, just listing cities and populations with more prose than necessary. Reywas92^Talk 15:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not in good shape at the moment but the concept of a "metropolis" is trivially notable. Astaire (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is it? This is like having an article on tome when we already have book. Furius (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Agree with @Reywas92 that the content is mostly redundant with metropolitan area Earlsofsandwich (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Metropolitan area, per Reywas92 and WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of sources would be helpful at this point. Before taking action on this sizeable article, I'd like to see a stronger consensus and also hope we can get more participation from some longtime editors and AFD participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is sufficient scholarly study of the concept of "metropolis", distinct from "metropolitan area" or "large city" to meet WP:GNG and support a standalone article. Sources include:

Ritzer, George; Ryan, J. Michael (2011-01-25). "metropolis". The Concise Encyclopedia of Sociology. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 397–398. ISBN 978-1-4051-8352-9. (tertiary source showing the topic is covered by specialty encyclopedias; lists additional sources)
Williams, Ralph Olmsted (1890). "The Word "Metropolis" as Used in England and America". Our Dictionaries and Other English Language Topics. Henry Holt and Company. pp. 47–65. (detailed etymological history)
Farías, Ignacio; Stemmler, Susanne (2014-03-27), Brantz, Dorothee; Disko, Sasha; Wagner-Kyora, Georg (eds.), "Deconstructing "Metropolis": Critical Reflections on a European Concept", Thick Space: Approaches to Metropolitanism, transcript Verlag, pp. 49–66, doi:10.1515/transcript.9783839420430.49/html, ISBN 978-3-8394-2043-0, retrieved 2025-01-05
Rodger, Richard (2014-03-27), Brantz, Dorothee; Disko, Sasha; Wagner-Kyora, Georg (eds.), "The Significance of the Metropolis", Thick Space: Approaches to Metropolitanism, transcript Verlag, pp. 85–104, doi:10.1515/transcript.9783839420430.85/pdf?licensetype=restricted, ISBN 978-3-8394-2043-0, retrieved 2025-01-05
Basaldua-Sun, Sophia Marguerite (2019-10-01). "Metro(Polis): Decentering Urbanity in Conceptualizing Metropolitanism". Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 102 (4): 345–370. doi:10.5325/soundings.102.4.0345. ISSN 0038-1861.
Cunningham, David (2005). "The concept of metropolis". University of Westminster.

Jfire (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is, please. This article by itself has 319 watchers. Also see Metropolis (disambiguation). And then there's the 155 watchers on Superman's home of Metropolis (comics). Too many possibilities for a merge of any two individual articles. — Maile (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Keep as is[reply]
Keep The article probably needs a cleanup, but the metropolis is clearly a notable topic - see scholarly articles such as [32]. SportingFlyer T·C 03:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 06:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]