Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 29

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< January 28 January 30 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 01:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Money Without Me

Money Without Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hello. I previously tried to nominate this article for deletion because the sources included were not absolutely verifiable. I failed because I didn't understand Wikipedia's many rules on deletion. Now that I actually understand the process, I'd like to try again. As said before, this article is very weak on verifiable sources. The only sources are hip-hop and music blogs jumping onto the track to generate content for their site. It's clear that the release wasn't intentional, as this was a track leaked years ago that was eventually taken down from his YouTube channel. This happens a lot for artists under UMG. For example, Kanye West has had his YouTube channel hacked multiple times, and each time hackers upload previously leaked songs to make them seem like new releases. The articles themselves are very short and a lot of them peddle rumors around a GNX Deluxe Edition, and the only source for the latter is Lefty Gunplay claiming that a deluxe version exists. He is the only person known to have said this and no one else to my knowledge has confirmed this. It's simply a leaked track that got an article because it was made in a hurry. I yield my time. Thank you for understanding. 35.20.154.84 (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting what I posted on the article's talk page, as I saw that first.
The existence of
Wikipedia:UNRELEASED under Wikipedia:Notability (music) means that there is absolutely a scenario in which an unreleased or leaked track can have a Wikipedia page. Therefore, the points mentioned about the release being unintentional or possibly resulting from a hack are not relevant. I agree that not all leaks should have Wikipedia pages, but that's only because people generally don't write about them, and therefore they aren't inherently notable per guidelines. You don't see many articles about Kanye West
leaks, for instance. That brings me to my next point.
The article meets
Wikipedia:UNRELEASED. The deletion justification cherry-picks the article's weakest sources; however, there are still reliable sources from Pitchfork, FLOOD, and Hypebeast
which are significant, non-trivial, and independent. They discuss both the song substantively unto itself while discussing the nature in which it was mysteriously released. A previous edit summary from this editor even acknowledges this. The editor now says that these sources are short, but there's no guideline that I know of which places any value on this, so I have no reason to acknowledge the point. Ultimately, even if you remove all of the low-quality sources, you would still get an article founded on decently qualifiable sources that meet notability. Therefore, the points mentioned on sourcing are good reasons to remove sources for quality assurance but not to delete the article as a whole; if the editor wants to remove those sources on these grounds, then they are free to do so.
At best, the deletion justification provided thus far is a good list of reasons on why this article isn't "good" in a very subjective sense, and I accept that; however, it isn't a good angle on notability, nor does it refer to any guidelines, making it less of a deletion justification and more so just one person's opinion on the article. I look forward to reading a more technical, policy-based deletion justification from any other editors who feel that the article shouldn't exist. If the article is convincingly proven to have fallen short of a Wikipedia guideline, then it should be deleted. Phibeatrice (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes
WP:UNRELEASED. Locust member (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. This article, in draft form, was accepted by an extended confirmed AFC reviewer so the only protection that would carry out your wishes is a full protection (admins only) and I can't see imposing that on this draft article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramayana: Part 1

Ramayana: Part 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Moved to draft space but was moved back out. This has not even finished filming, has been delayed previously, and has an anticipation release date 22 months from now. I see NOTHING notable about the production and is full of unreliable sources such as

WP:ATD but based on experience in the Indian film space, it would just be removed and we would wind up here anyway. CNMall41 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

This is a daily occurrence in the space unfortunately. And, once moved to draft an SPA will simply move it live a few months later. Short of locking all titles I am not sure what else can be done. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 20:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix Fitness

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

Most of the sources I could find after looking are primary sources and routine coverage from fitness websites. The refs already in the article are also mostly press releases and fitness websites. There isn't really anything that meets

WP:SIGCOV. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 20:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bengals–Chiefs rivalry

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

I am proposing this deletion because this is extremely likely to be a short term blip in their history. Unlike

Bills-Chiefs rivalry, which had a history in the 90s, this really was only a thing from 2021-2023 and is likely already fading with the Bengals not making the playoffs the last two years. This feels eerily similar to the relationship between the Braves and Phillies, which does not have an article per multiple discussions. Maybe if they meet in the playoffs we can rediscuss, but for now the rivalry seems to mainly be disgruntled Bengals fans. 134.204.117.34 (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep‎. One unstated "keep", no policy-compliant deletion rationale offered. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Future Giant Telescope

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

Little content and no edits in years Littenberg (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 19:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: After mid 2000s there have been published at least two studies about this telescope: [1] (2016)[2] (2022). Apparently it is just a proposal and I'm not sure there is significant coverage beyond the papers about its design (probably don't count as third-party coverage). --C messier (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: lack of article updates isn't a reason to delete. There is sufficient evidence for at least minor notability. As C Messier noted, there are studies being published as recently as 2022. 2014[3], 2018[4] Praemonitus (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I turned up
      doi:10.1117/12.801257. Uncle G (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Keep: meets the guideline at
    WP:GNG. Cremastra (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 18:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ulukent railway station

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

The Turkish article does not have good enough cites to show that this station is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Schäfer

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

primary sources that are not support for notability, with absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy coverage or analysis about his work.
It also warrants note that even though he's German, and thus an article on the German Wikipedia would be expected to exist if he were genuinely notable enough for Wikipedia, the only interlang actually present here is in Portuguese, and cites absolutely no GNG-worthy sourcing that could be moved over here to salvage this either -- while even the Wikidata entry suggests that attempts to create articles about him in the Spanish and Romanian Wikipedias have previously been deleted on those Wikipedias for notability reasons, whereas no article about him has ever existed in the German Wikipedia at all. So even the Portuguese article exists only because the Portuguese administrators haven't caught and deleted it yet, rather than because he's got any kind of genuine claim to notability. (Does anybody here have enough Portuguese to take it to their AFD?)
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 23:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Star Academies

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

Non notable academy, fails

WP:NORG a before shows no independent coverage. Theroadislong (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 18:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IdeaForge

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in

WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Smålandsstenar. Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smålandsstenar Public Library

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

Small town library that doesn't seem to meet

WP:NGEO. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was no consensus‎. The discussion has had both advocates for rewriting, or

improved by editing rather than deleted. My advice would be to clean up the article, and file a new AfD if it is found to be unsalvagable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Genlin

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

Highly promotional and of very questionable notability over a

WP:SUSTAINED period. Amigao (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep Agree that the article as written seems quite promotional in tone, and it seems there might possible be conflict on interest concerns, but those are both things to be fixed through editing, not AfD nominations. If you want to go through and reword all the promotional parts, have at it. There seems to be more than enough coverage to establish notability though (some sources aren’t great, but there are enough that are to establish notability). As for WP:SUSTAINED arguments… I see sources from 2016 - 2024 so I can’t see how it applies here? Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, definitely needs cleanup but
    WP:STUBIFY is appropriate. DCsansei (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article seems to have a circular logic to it. Genlin is notable for funding World Dog Alliance, but I cannot find RS to show World Dog Alliance is notable. The whole table in the middle Contributions by Genlin/ World Dog Alliance conflates the two and can be considered original research. For example The joint efforts of Genlin and lobbyists succeeded in convincing Republic Congressman Jeff Denham to include a ban on dog meat consumption into the 2018 Farm Bill passed on 12 December 2018 in the House of Representatives. The bill obtained bipartisan support, notably from Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings, who had earlier co-sponsored a separate bill to Congress (H.R. 1406 - To amend the Animal Welfare Act to prohibit the slaughter of dogs and cats for human consumption
    WP:TNT.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
    ]

References

  1. ^ "Text - H.R.1406 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): To amend the Animal Welfare Act to prohibit the slaughter of dogs and cats for human consumption". www.congress.gov. 23 March 2017. Retrieved 18 January 2025.
Keep Wouldn't the passage cited as original research be essentially the same as those promotional parts that
WP:TNT. As previous commentators suggested, there are enough references that are good enough here albeit in different languages. Genlin is Chinese / Japanese, and it must be expected that some of his related sources will be Chinese. With instant translation easier than ever on most browsers, language barrier seems to be a very low bar to suggest for page deletion in my opinion. As for the point about the passage being circular and Genlin being conflated with Word Dog Alliance, I have found another source from 2024 on Chosun Daily (Korea's largest newspaper media, printed in Korean) which is a feature article on the works of both. If a reputable media can print a story about the two together because the two are inherently close, I cannot see why it should pose a reason for suggesting this page be taken down. Here is the link to article I mentioned (please forgive my relative lack of Wiki finesse here meaning I cannot put this into a reference section) -- https://www.chosun.com/international/2024/02/27/ODZKDBS6QJG4NOAZFTST4SQJH4/
The same article would also seem to suggest that Genlin is in fact close with Jeff Denham (quoted in the block of texts in question) as the two travel together to South Korea to meet the Korean legislators there to discuss laws to stop the dog meat trade. That being said the particular passage in question still lacks proper citations and I do agree a few other parts of the page also needs rewriting / taken out and/or better citations. EAWDA (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC) — EAWDA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Here is another source on the BBC from 2018 quoting World Dog Alliance. This source was not cited on this Wiki page but I reckon it adds to the point about it being notable.
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-45085514 EAWDA (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per my reply to WomenArtistUpdates above (didn't realize the existence of a 3rd discussion at the time of my posting, so my entries above should've been posted here given the timing of my comments was after this 3rd discussion started. If anyone feels it necessary for me to delete my comments above and repost them here please let me know). EAWDA (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments EAWDA has !voted twice. I stand by my opinion that this is article does not show notability of either Genlin or World Dog Alliance. Below is a source assessment table which shows the number of primary sources, press releases, and irrelevant citations. Looking at the history of the page, the overwhelming activity is from SPAs. World Dog Alliance draft was rejected back in [5] I hope another editor can weigh in on this article to create a consensus. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable?
Significant coverage?
 Count source toward
GNG
?
Yes Yes No Shanghai university passing mention of Peng Hongling as an honorary director ✘ No
No No No Puffy biographical info on WDA (primary source) ✘ No
page from wayback machine. I cannot translate text ? Unknown
No interview with puffy interview ✘ No
page from wayback machine. I cannot translate text ? Unknown
page from wayback machine. I cannot translate text ? Unknown
page from wayback machine. I cannot translate text ? Unknown
Wenhui Daily News culture listing for anti-consumption of dog meat with puffy interview of Peng Hongling ? Unknown
South China Morning Post promo piece in the weekend section ? Unknown
No IMDB No No IMDB ✘ No
No IMDB No No IMDB ✘ No
Animal Protection Association of the Republic of China NGO promotion of World Dog Day ? Unknown
Yes Yes No article covering the passage of "Taiwan: Animal Protection Law Amended' no mention of Peng Hong Ling ✘ No
NewTalk 新頭殼 ~ Peng Hong Ling comment on the passage of "Animal Protection Act" ? Unknown
No No An open letter from the Movement Group to President Tsai "Incorporating Animal Protection into the Constitution" No OpEd ✘ No
Yes Yes Lobbying Firm Profile: Missy Edwards Strategies No passing mention of World Dog Alliance an a donor ✘ No
Yes Yes Lobbying Firm Profile: Prime Policy Group No passing mention of World Dog Alliance an a donor ✘ No
Yes Yes No passing mention of World Dog Alliance an a donor ✘ No
No Animal Friendly Network No churnalish about "The World Dog Alliance (WDA), which is committed to promoting legislation in the United States, is the source of this huge wave" ✘ No
Yes Yes No not mentioned in this legislative listing ✘ No
Yes Yes No not mentioned in this legislative listing ✘ No
No No No petition on World Dog Alliance site (primary) ✘ No
No No No PRESS RELEASE: Paid Content from ACCESS Newswire. The AP news staff was not involved in its creation. ✘ No
No no mention of Genlin ✘ No
No article about dog meat. no mention of Genlin ✘ No
No article about 'Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs: Dogs have been "specialized" as companion animals and should not be included in livestock and poultry management.' no mention of Genlin ✘ No
WORLD ANIMAL NEWS No Victory! Jakarta Bans The Dog & Cat Meat Trade Making It The 21st Jurisdiction In Indonesia To End The Barbaric Industry - no mention of Genlin ✘ No
No No No PRESS RELEASE: Paid Content from ACCESS Newswire. The AP news staff was not involved in its creation. ✘ No
No No Written Evidence submitted by World Dog Alliance (WDA)(AAB0002) No primary source ✘ No
No mention of World Dog Alliance as one of the supporting organizations ✘ No
Yes Yes "Could Chinese millionaire be reason for real estate industry nightmare?". paywalled, but lloks like an article about the purchase of real estate in LA. ? Unknown
No No No article on World Dog Alliance site. (primary) ✘ No
paywalled ? Unknown
No No No press release ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Note that my keep above is not based on sources that are currently in the article and I suggested
    native-language search for sources more would be found, but I think this provides more than enough to meet the minimum for GNG. DCsansei (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comment DCsansei has !voted twice. Also noting that There is substantial coverage of his lawsuit against his former property broker for misrepresenting his house's square footage does not move this dilettante millionaire anywhere closer to notable --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. The claim of notability in the first paragraph is "named as an Outstanding Alumni" of their university and that is not a good sign as this is not a highly prestigious award that would indicate that they are regarded as an important figure. The sources I have checked as well as the source assessment table above make clear that this is not a notable topic as it has not received significant, sustained coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Asparagusstar (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: providing another source assessment (first time doing one, please excuse template mistakes) below with the sources ignored in the one above. DCsansei (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable?
Significant coverage?
 Count source toward
GNG
?
Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes The website is a vertical of Sankei Shimbun ~ He is discussed but only as one of the examples ~ Partial
Yes Yes HK01 Yes ✔ Yes
Unclear if he is affiliated Unclear Yes ? Unknown
Wen Wei Po is a Chinese-government newspaper Yes ? Unknown
Yes Yes Appears to be news produced by Sina Corporation Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Corriere della Sera Yes ~ Interview with coverage, at least partially counts ~ Partial
Yes The Chosun Ilbo Yes Yes ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Sources do not need to be in the article to be considered. As I mentioned in my initial comment, my !vote is not based on sources in the article but on a WP:BEFORE search. I provided some of these sources in a follow-up comment which was ignored in the assessment table you did so I did my own table with those sources included. I just edited to add two more, Corriere della Sera from the current article and The Chosun Ilbo which was referenced earlier in this discussion.
We have six examples of clear significant coverage and two partial contributors. As I have said repeatedly, I am not defending the current article but
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. DCsansei (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
*Comment Thanks to @DCsansei for turning up those sources, and doing the source assessment on them. Fully agree with them that according to WP policy sources only need to exist for the purposes of notability, not to be in the article as written, and that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Absurdum4242 (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 18:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European Operations Management Association

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

Flagged for notability since 2020. No references. Can only find passing mentions to the conference it hosts on Google. Orange sticker (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete here.

Wikipedia does have plenty of articles on myths and legends but they can't present themselves as based in specific historical dates as, again, they are myths and legends and are not based on the historical record. Liz Read! Talk! 18:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vikramaditya Empire

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

The article mixes history and legends and presents it as historical fact. The so-called "Vikramaditya Empire" is not recognised by reliable sources and the topic fails

WP:HOAX. Koshuri (グ) 16:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz Read! Talk! 18:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ilu Ilu

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

Sources are only from TOI, which alone cannot establish notability. Due to

WP:NEWSORGINDIA, the sources appear to be promotional press releases and do not contribute to notability. Fails GNG and NFILM. GrabUp - Talk 16:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Another source, ETV Bharat, has been added. Palakpatels952 (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to

(non-admin closure) Reywas92Talk 17:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

White Rock Creek (Republican River tributary)

White Rock Creek (Republican River tributary) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a duplicate of White Rock Creek (Kansas) Jbt89 (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎.

(non-admin closure) ZyphorianNexus Talk 18:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 Lite 7.0

Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 Lite 7.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Asking for a page delete, as it's already on the List of Samsung tablets Madeline1805 (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list you linked has a ton of blue links, do you want all of those articles gone as well?? J. Geerink (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article you linked does not have specific information about the devices in it like the ones included in your AfD do. UndeadAnarchy|✉ 12:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 109.186.22.255 (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dont delete. a this information is not available on other wikipedia pages 49.205.143.162 (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is okay and there is no reason why it should be deleted. cyrfaw (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close‎. Wrong venue, should be at

(non-admin closure) ZyphorianNexus Talk 16:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

A Night In (Press Gang episode)

A Night In (Press Gang episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I created this redirect to add to Category:Bottle television episodes. The category was removed so there's no real reason for this article to exist anymore. Fuddle (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to College of Biblical Studies. There is consensus against a standalone article, and no objections to the proposed redirect. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Blocker

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

Notability; Cant see anything either in the article or online to suggest he passes

WP:GNG TheLongTone (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep‎.

(non-admin closure) ZyphorianNexus Talk 13:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Dragon tiger phoenix

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

Seems to be a hoax --- for one, it is a dish that includes a combination of snake meat, cat meat, and chicken. For another, all sources on both the English and Chinese article lead to a 404 page; possibly bogus links created by generative AI. YAQUBROLI T | C 13:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by MCE89 and Prince of Erebor. Not a hoax. Procyon117 (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyed Mohsen Fatemi

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

A mid-career academic not yet reaching

WP:NPROF. Scopus H-factor of 4 is well below what one might expect in the field, suggesting little impact; most of the arguments from the 2016 AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sayyed Mohsen Fatemi) still apply. Klbrain (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

As to the publication of psychologist Sayyed Mohsen Fatemi, he has 43 publications but only 73 citations which doesn't speak in favor of his notability as an academic:

I'm just curious how you found his H-index50.39.138.50 (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Scopus H-factor, linked on Wikidata. Klbrain (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the statistics on ResearchGate are more comprehensive than on Scopus. However, I still believe this person doesn’t have sufficient notability for a standalone Wikipedia page.50.39.138.50 (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. A consensus is not going to emerge here to delete this. As this is not a BLP, there is no mandate to move from mainspace due a lack of identified/English sourcing. Recommend an effort is made with the relevant projects to improve this prior to a renomination. Star Mississippi 02:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Aidarous gate

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

Doesn't pass

WP:GNG, and its coverage is also questionable. Merging it into Abu Bakr al-Aydarus wouldn't be any better if it lacks notability in the first place. In any case, it doesn't need its own standalone article. – Garuda Talk! 12:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Can I know which GNG criteria does it not pass? This monument the main gate of al-Shihr and I dont see what is not notable about it. And why would it get merged to Abu Bakr al-Aydarus? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources on it exist in Arabic. You can copy the arabic name and search for it in google and then translate the page using google translate's website translator 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but a lot of those sources are ones where the name appears in passing. This is true both of an Arabic-language search in Google Books and Google News - for example the story about the young man who hanged himself in the Al Akhaween Hotel in the Sidat Al-Aidrous area in Hadhramaut Governorate.[36]-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How can an historic fortification possibly not be notable by any definition of
WP:COMMONSENSE? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
How? That's exactly what I explained through my
WP:BEFORE in my previous comment. Given that there are few to no English outlets even mentioning such sites (and, as Toddy further pointed out, only passing mentions in Arabic outlets), I don't see how the judgment of 'clearly notable' fits here. I'm still inclined toward deletion. Koshuri (グ) 14:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
Which is why I cited
WP:SYSTEMIC applies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sorry, but
WP:GEOFEAT, then there's no need for cherry-picking. That said, I'm not "anti-essay," but using one to justify a guideline seems a bit off to me. Koshuri (グ) 15:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
@Koshuri Sultan:. You are mistaken. I said that a lot of the Arabic-language books and news articles mentioning Al-Aidarous gate merely contain passing mentions of the building. I did not say that all of them contained just passing mentions.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to

(non-admin closure) ZyphorianNexus Talk 11:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Piosenka dla Europy 2008

Piosenka dla Europy 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article appears to almost wholly replicate Poland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008; as the "Poland in ESC 2008" article covers all aspects of the country's participating in the event, I propose merging any information not included in "PdE 2008" into "Poland in ESC 2008" and deleting or redirecting the former Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to The Persian Caravanserai. Contra the relister, I see clear consensus here against the standalone article as it stands, with the need to preserve encyclopedic content and the possibility of a future spinoff allowed by a merger. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Caravanserais of Iran

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

Entirely unsourced, fails

WP:NOTDIRECTORY, previously draftified but the author decided to move back to mainspace so nominating here instead. CoconutOctopus talk 09:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. The topic in question is a valid one, but the list cannot remain as is, per the nominator's explanation. Some of these can be sourced by using the list of inclusions at the UNESCO World Heritage Site ([38]), which brings my attention to the already existing list at The Persian Caravanserai. Given that the latter article is essentially a list article of its own and is otherwise very awkward in name and scope, the ideal scenario in my view would be to merge these two together (preferably with a clearer title like List of caravanserais in Iran) and use the sourced UNESCO list as a starting point for a proper list article. R Prazeres (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Its a good and important subject but needs being referenced and improved not completely deleted. Taha Danesh (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zinda Park

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

The article fails to meet

Message 05:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎.

(non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Planon

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

Business does business things. Non-notable. Fails

WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: This shouldn't have passed AfC, at least in its current state. The sources largely look like press releases and routine coverage, neither of which can be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Both the Gartner and Verdantix analyst reports are based on independent research and are widely considered credible sources. These reports are recognized as two of the most important publications for Integrated Workplace Management Systems (as noted in the IWMS Wikipedia entry). The recognition as a market leader in these reports makes it sufficiently notable and reliable for inclusion on Wikipedia in my opinion. Stella2707 (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - An article for this company exists on Dutch Wikipedia, see https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planon.
Seems to be a lot more information there, might be worth looking if the sources there establish notability. Chew(V • T • E) 03:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I still think this page should be kept, [removed double !vote] and I have also added more sources, including ones mentioned in the more detailed Dutch Wikipedia entry.
I believe that Gartner and Verdantix naming Planon as a market leader are strong, independent indicators of notability. These reports are widely respected in the industry and are even referenced as trusted benchmarks on the IWMS page. If these reports are considered reliable for establishing notability on the IWMS page, I don’t see why they wouldn’t hold the same weight here. Stella2707 (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are not allowed to issue multiple !votes in the same discussion. It is highly disruptive behavior that makes discussions more difficult to follow. With that being said, can you identify two sources that you have added that establish that the company meets
WP: ORGTRIV and that the notability guidelines on the Dutch Wikipedia are not the same as the guidelines here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, I thought we'd start a whole new vote here - thanks for deleting.
The sources I added are the ones from Het Financieele Dagblad, Verdantix & De Gelderlander (#13, 8, 5 in the list of references). Stella2707 (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FD is probably routine coverage, because it's sourced to an unnamed "editor". The Verdantix source and De Gelderlander are behind paywalls, so unless you can provide a copy of the articles or quotations that show significant coverage, this doesn't count. Remember that the onus is on you to show significant coverage, not the other way around. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an excerpt of 'De Gelderlander' article (original is in Dutch):
Pierre Guelen expanded his one-man business into a global player and receives a prestigious honor
Pierre Guelen from Wijchen was appointed Officer in the Order of Orange-Nassau on Saturday evening. This royal decoration is awarded for exceptional achievements with an international impact or significant national influence.
Job van der Meer | 26-05-24, 16:12
The company Planon, which Guelen founded as a one-man business in 1982, has grown into an enterprise with fifteen offices worldwide and approximately 1,000 employees. His first project involved writing software for the maintenance plan of Philips' Nijmegen location. Over forty years later, his software for smart and sustainable building management is now being used in 40 countries.
And here from Verdantix:
Green Quadrant: Connected Portfolio Intelligence Platforms (CPIP/IWMS) 2025
By Joy Trinquet With Claire Stephens January 2025
This report provides a detailed, fact-based comparison of the 12 most prominent connected portfolio intelligence platform (CPIP)/integrated workplace management system (IWMS) software providers in the market. Based on the proprietary Verdantix Green Quadrant methodology, our analysis comprised two-and-a-half-hour live product demonstrations with pre-set scenarios, desk research and vendor responses to a 184-point questionnaire covering eight technical, nine functional and eight market momentum categories. We also conducted interviews with 17 software users and reviewed the data from our global survey of 303 corporate real estate and facilities management executives. Verdantix analysis finds that vendors are transitioning from legacy IWMS solutions to CPIP offerings to meet customer demand for greater data integration and analytics. Among the firms analysed in this study, eight providers – Planon, IBM, Eptura, MRI Software, Tango, Johnson Controls, Spacewell-Nemetschek and Nuvolo – demonstrated leading CPIP/IWMS capabilities.
....
In the Green Quadrant analysis, Planon is the highest performer, achieving an aggregate score of 2.2/3.0 on the capabilities axis and a score of 2.4/3.0 on the momentum axis. Planon has remained in the Leaders’ Quadrant since Verdantix first ran the IWMS Green Quadrant report in 2017.
..... Stella2707 (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of those quotations do anything to establish notability. As I stated above, please read
WP: ORGTRIV. Routine coverage, such as the receiving of non-notable awards, and trivial mentions do not establish the notability of any subject. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
In my opinion, these sources aren’t “trivial coverage,” and I also don’t think the award is non-notable — if it was, it probably wouldn’t have its own Wikipedia page, right?
I’d also argue that these articles fall under the category of
WP:SUBSTANTIAL
. They are independent pieces that discuss partnerships and acquisitions, highlighting their impact on the industry while also referencing competitors:
Haven't added those sources yet:
When setting up the page, I also looked at similar pages like TopDesk, Nemetschek and MRI Software. It would be really helpful to know which of the sources on those pages are considered notable so I can try to find comparable ones for the Planon entry. Stella2707 (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong on every count. As I very clearly stated above, Dutch Wikipedia and English Wikipedia have different notability standards. The existence of an article also doesn't imply that its subject is notable. Plenty of articles are created about non-notable topics, such as the one we're discussing right now. It is also clear that you are either unable or unwilling to read the policies that I have cited because
WP: NCORP clearly states that "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as ... the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel [and] of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business." do not establish notability. Do not insert any more sources into this discussion until you have read these policies. You are wasting valuable volunteer time by ignoring them. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for your response. I have read the policies and still none of my sources fall under hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel, nor are they standard notices, brief announcements, or routine coverage of expansions, acquisitions, or mergers. Instead, they analyze and discuss the acquisition and its industry impact - but anyways:
My goal is not to waste anyone’s time — I want to improve the entry. That’s why I’d really appreciate feedback on my earlier question: which sources on similar (English!) pages are considered notable? That way, I can focus on finding comparable ones. I’m not here to argue, just to learn and contribute constructively.
I’ll leave it here for now but would appreciate any feedback from you or others. Stella2707 (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Planon is very widely used, we have no reason to doubt the accuracy of our article, which is conveying quite simple and non-promotional information. The sourcing is about as good as you'd expect for this class of company. But from the perspective of common sense, it's quite likely that a reader who has come across planon at work might be curious as to its origins, and it's the fundamental job of an encyclopedic site such as our own to help them find out more. What conceivable benefit is there in deciding not to tell them? Elemimele (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion about whether this article meets Wikipedia's guidelines. It is not a soapbox for you to ponder the philosophical meanings of deletion. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:5 (the five pillars of wikipedia) are "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia"; there is nothing more core than that. Elemimele (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not personally attacking you; I'm merely pointing out that you haven't made a complete argument. We need reliable sources in order to make an article encyclopedic, and there is no carveout for your favorite companies. I suggest you try to find better sources instead of trying to convince me that
WP: GNG says something it doesn't. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
the standards of its peers is not supported by our
WP:NORG policy. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. There is no consensus in the arguments as to whether this should be deleted or kept.

(non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Hindu empires and dynasties

List of Hindu empires and dynasties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article contains significant inaccuracies. The term "Hinduism" is not applicable to the time periods of ancient era, as only Brahmanism was present. The article incorrectly categorizes several non-Hindu dynasties as Hindu, spreading misinformation and distorting historical facts. This misrepresentation goes against the core

hoax in terms of factual accuracy in listing. Mr.Hanes Talk 14:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be the best way to decide this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reiterating the call for a source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CR (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear colleague: There are almost no sources listed for the items on this list. The three serious sources at the end have been added by me to justify the removal of mythical dynasties into their own table at the bottom (prior to that surgery these kingdoms were also in the main table with completely fictional dates and details, and the only two sources covered two tiny aspects, see the Old revision of List of Hindu empires and dynasties). My three sources thus do not support the information in the list itself and I am practically sure that most of the dates at the top of the table are also fictional (the ones I have marked with {{
cn}} contradict our own articles about the kingdoms, not the sources - that are mostly absent in these articles, too). I do not understand what can be done to verify, for example, the 1900BC claims for the Hindu kingdom at the top of the list, as mainstream historians apparently declare that Aryan people (proto-Indians) had settled in what is now India many centuries later. For the avoidance of doubt, I am no expert on the subject. Викидим (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete: As per nomination. This article has a lot of issues, it erroneously categorizes dynasties like the Pala dynasty and the Kalabhra dynasty as Hindu despite evidence to the contrary. It either needs to be deleted immediately, or it needs to be heavily edited to fix all these issues, which could take a long time.
AlvaKedak (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : I nominated this article because its current state is beyond improvement, various editors tried to improve the article but failed. So once it get removed, a new article on the same topic can be created by anyone with reliable sources as the topic is indeed notable. Mr.Hanes Talk 14:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup: I know the article has a lot of issues it needs cleanup on, and any dynasty or state listed which is not provably Hindu should be removed, but the list itself is mostly factual besides those areas that need cleanup and serves the purpose of listing states following the major religion of Hinduism and plays an important role in the histories of South Asia and Southeast Asia. I would suggest we get the Wiki projects on Hinduism and India at least to assist in making the article right instead of scrapping it. J390 (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close‎. The previous AFD closed on 1/28 and this one was opened on 1/29. Let's not rerun the previous AFD immediately. Please wait 3-6 months before a return trip to AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 08:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Albanese

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

Fails

WP:SIGCOV. BLP with no effective sourcing. Single reference is a cast list passing mention. scope_creepTalk 08:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nomination (don't know if I'm allowed to contribute to this as the previous nominator, if not just ignore) Aŭstriano (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are. I posted this again, because the last Afd was evidence free that resulted in a non-consensus result on a single passing mention, on a BLP. scope_creepTalk 11:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:SIGCOV. If you do not evidence then it will be redirected. scope_creepTalk 13:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
I referred to policy both in this AfD and the previous one. I read
WP:CREATIVE#3 as stating that someone who has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work is notable. It is the work that must have multiple independent reviews. If you don't think that See Dad Run meets those criteria, perhaps you should take it to AfD. The result of this AfD does not depend on me, nor on you - it will depend on what the consensus of participating editors is. I have added sources to this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
Pinging @Mushy Yank, Reading Beans, Mlkj, and Moopaz:, who participated in the AfD that finished one day ago.RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you believe is neither here nor there. You made that same evidence free policy absent statement the last time is a very unnecessarily hostile and inaccurate comment: Rebecca did refer to a guideline during the first AfD. Also, please bear in mind that people meeting
WP:SIGCOV. Sources have been added to address the verification issues. Anyone could have added them, including the nominator.-Mushy Yank. 13:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
Where is the
WP:V. scope_creepTalk 16:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
On another note, thank you
five pillars, the need for reliable sources must always take precedence over the various particular criteria that each topic uses to discuss notability! Mlkj (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
Exactly. Thanks for that!! Evidence free !voting is deeply uncool that leaves non-notable articles that have no place on Wikipedia. If there is sources for this BLP, they would be immediately visible on the reliable sources search as its a modern individual. No deep archive search is needed. There is nothing here and it needs to go or be redirected. And stating "Speedy Keep" as though its a heavily sourced historical article, when there is really hardly any information on the lady at all, except cast lists, is not helpful. Lastly
WP:BLP. scope_creepTalk 16:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 09:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Chen Jirui

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

nopnnotable "Chinese research scientist, medical doctor, and teacher" --

>talk 08:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was redirect‎ to West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education. Liz Read! Talk! 09:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nawpara High School (H.S.)

Nawpara High School (H.S.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:NSCHOOL as no multiple sources found with significant coverage. Maybe a redirect to West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education is a good option per ATD. GrabUp - Talk 08:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Aside from the fact that the abbreviation in the title is completely redundant, I would also support a redirect to West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education. Procyon117 (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 09:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia–Malta relations

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

A redirect that was unredirected. There seems to be no third party coverage of these relations to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎ under criterion G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Layer One X

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

Fails

WP:GNG. Plenty of crypto blogs but no significant coverage in reliable sources. CNMall41 (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 09:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adigun Ibrahim Olalekan

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

Sources are unreliable and do not provide significant coverage of the subject, failing GNG. Being the chairman of a student union does not inherently make a person notable, failing NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 08:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @GrabUp for checking the article, actually he is a chairman of a local government in Lagos and he been selected as speaker and deputy speaker of a union at is undergraduate level could be removed if that doesn't have a credible citation, I pardon my insufficiency to provide Good and credible citation around the article, if you could help me out on what can be removed for thr article to be removed from deletion, I do be glad.
Thank you so much as i awaits a positive response from you soonest. Favourdare123 (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@
notability criteria. So the article can’t be kept. GrabUp - Talk 08:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete per nominator, I can't find any reliable source about this subject.

Ok1616 09:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to

(non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Space Solar Power Exploratory Research and Technology program

Space Solar Power Exploratory Research and Technology program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article lacks inline cites and the topic is already covered in Space-based_solar_power#Exploratory_Research_and_Technology_program No objection to merging if you think the refs at the end of this article are sufficient. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for merge as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soprano clarinet

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

Completely duplicative of clarinet article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I? Look at
tenor trombone is overwhelmingly what people mean when they use the word, and lo and behold, it redirects into the main article. That's the same situation here: the B flat clarinet (and its slightly differently-pitched siblings) are what people mean when they talk of a clarinet. Mangoe (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source eval for the newly found ones?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll start you off,
    basset-horn. There is definite scope for expansion on the specific subject from these sources, given the state of the article at hand. I barely skimmed Baines 1991 as the first two are strong indications that sourcing is available and expansion is possible; a quick look at its index indicates that it too covers the C clarinet in several places throughout the book. And since I mention Rice, past president of the American Musical Instrument Society, clarinetist, and OUP-published clear subject expert, there's another book by Rice that seems to have a fair bit to say about this subject throughout its length: Rice 2008. Reading the sources, it seems clear that what we have here is a crap article, not a crap scope for a future article. I know at least one fact not in the present article just from reviewing these sources: Mahler and Strauss revived the use of the C clarinet in the 20th century.(Baines 1991, p. 120) Uncle G (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Keep. UpTheOctave! has hit the nail on the head: in any family of musical instruments, there are generalities that apply to all, and specifics that apply to individual sizes. If we put the specifics in the main article, it will often be too long, and there's a strong risk that the article will give undue weight to "odd" sizes about which much can be written, but which are rarely actually played. Putting the specifics in a separate article makes the overarching "family" article a lot more manageable, and means editors can expand on the specific sizes of instrument to their readers' hearts' content. It also deals with the fact that it's a bit arbitrary when we give an instrument a totally different name (viola versus violin) and when we use the family name with some qualifier. Elemimele (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Loudspeaker (2018 film). Star Mississippi 03:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaavya Sha

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

From a WP:BEFORE, I am unable to find any independent sources with significant coverage. The only sources I could find with SIGCOV are interviews /wedding announcements, which are ineligible towards GNG. NACTOR is also not met here, as none of these roles are significant enough to warrant a separate article. No plausible ATDR either. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:41, 14 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! 02:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable?
Significant coverage?
 Count source toward
GNG
?
No byline No ~ ✘ No
No Interview ~ Yes ✘ No
No Independent blog ~ ✘ No
No Press release No No ✘ No
~ No Video coverage of her marriage ✘ No
No Press release ~ No ✘ No
Yes Yes No Passing mention - Review ✘ No
~ No Routine coverage ✘ No
~ No Routine coverage ✘ No
No No Passing mention ✘ No
Yes Yes No Passing mention - Review ✘ No
Yes ~ No Passing mention - Review ✘ No
~ Interview ~ Yes ~ Partial
No Interview ~ Yes ✘ No
~ Partial Interview ~ Yes ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Per WP:GNG, even if we consider multiple publications from TOI group as a single source for the purpose of establishing notability, we would still require two more good sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC) Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for redirect as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

3/3 (EP)

3/3 (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After a quick BEFORE, I do not think this EP meets NALBUM. At present, the article is sourced solely via primary sources, and I haven't been able to find any secondary sources discussing the EP, the artist, or the record label. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Extremely reliant on primary sources, as well as no secondary sources found by you. (Acer's Communication Receptacle | what did I do now) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 23:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upfluence

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

Sources are not providing SIGCOV coverage. Failing GNG and NCORP. GrabUp - Talk 06:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhlach family

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

I am revisiting this article as part of a failed bundled nomination of Filipino family articles created by

synthesis might be involved during the tree's creation, although I am not sure. Other than the family tree, there's only a very short lead section and a couple of references. EJPPhilippines (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete‎. But if you're making a case for a redirect, Uncle G, happy to restore the history. Wasn't clear Star Mississippi 03:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mardenis, Indiana

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

Another case of ignoring what the reference actually says about the place, it's clear from the history that this was only a shipping point on the railroad, not a town. And yes, the topos show nothing there. Mangoe (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. "small station on the Wabash Railroad called Mardenis" in the source is unambiguous. Although for completeness I should note that Victor Eldon Stech upgraded it to "village" in xyr 1940 The Development of Huntington County. The Huntington County Historical Society's 1993 history book (Turner,
    ISBN 9781563111211) barely mentions Mardenis, but there are several early 20th century specialist trade sources (The American Elevator and Grain Trade, The Co-operative Manager and Farmer, Grain and Feed Journals Consolidated) that report, for examples, the Mardenis Equity Exchange going bankrupt in 1922 and the grain elevator fire of 1923 that cost US$10,000 (equivalent to $184,551 in 2024). Things going bankrupt and up in smoke a century ago seems like an explanation for there being nothing there today. ☺

    It's a shameful reflection on the editors with accounts to see that an editor without an account who correctly went with this being a railroad station rather than the "unincorporated community" dren, and tried to correctly link it to Andrews, Indiana (albeit by the wrong article title) in agreement with the station order that is (for example) in C. J. Phillips's 1965 The History of Indiana, was reverted by Cards84664 for no good reason at Special:Diff/1006680664.

    Uncle G (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply

    ]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Red T

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

A search for sources yielded nothing in depth to meet

WP:ORG. The 2 sources provided are primary. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. All I could find were interviews, primary sources and passing mentions. I also looked at whether its founder might be notable as a possible move/redirect option, but I don't think there's enough about her to pass
    WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Thailand at the 1984 Summer Olympics. I don't see a good, policy-based reason NOT to have a Redirect. Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manop Leeprasansakul

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

Declined prod that was redirected. I contested the redirect

WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Hum TV#Daily series. Liz Read! Talk! 08:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sartaj Mera Tu Raaj Mera

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

Unless there are non-English sources that can be found, there is nothing I can find that amounts to significant coverage. A redirect to

WP:ATD but would not qualify as a standalone page. CNMall41 (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Short linear motif. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YGL motif

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

Probably fails

WP:GNG. It's mentioned in a few studies about motifs and the viruses that have it, but only seems to be a major part of one primary source (the one used in the article). When comparing this motif to others, most of the motifs in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Protein_structural_motifs are much broader in scope than the YGL motif and have been the subject of far more research than the YGL motif. Google search returns 15 (filtered) results, 3 of which (20%) are to Wikipedia. Google Scholar just ten results. Velayinosu (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Macheret

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

As the article's subject, I'd like to request that the article be deleted.

I am a non-notable, private person, and so the article about me does not meet the notability criteria.

Specifically:

1. This BLP article is already designated as low-importance one. Indeed, although I have made contributions to my field, numerous individuals who have made much more significant and impactful contributions do not have their Wikipedia pages. Although I have been elected a Fellow of AIAA, my professional society, overwhelming majority of 800+ AIAA Fellows and also Fellows of other similar societies do not have Wikipedia pages. There are hundreds, if not thousands, people in my field who are much more famous, have much higher citation counts, are Fellows of one or more professional societies and Members of the highly prestigious National Academy of Engineering or National Academy of Inventors (of which I am not a Member), and have no Wikipedia pages. For example: Prof. Richard B. Miles, Texas A&M University (formerly of Princeton U.), Prof. Mark J. Kushner (U. of Michigan), Prof. Graham Candler (U. of Minnesota), Prof. Alexander A. Fridman (Drexel U.), and many, many others. In short, I believe that my notability is too low for a Wikipedia BLP article.

2. My 'notoriety' stems from the single offence described in the current article as Legal Issues. However, all that notoriety is due to initial police-made accusation of dealing drugs, which was immediately interpreted by the media as a real-life case of "Breaking Bad" TV series. When these bogus accusations of drug dealing disappeared (they were never filed in court rather than "dropped") and only a single misdemeanor offence remained, national and international media immediately lost all interest. Only local media, i.e. a student-run newspaper, a small-town newspaper, and a local TV station reported on the developments since then. As it is, the single misdemeanor offence certainly does not meet the Wikipedia notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMacheret (talk • contribs) 19:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per
    WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and subject's request. "Where the living subject of a biographical article has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." In addition, it says: "Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed." — Maile (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
    ]
No. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now that the BLP issues are resolved to the satisfaction of the subject/nomination, relisting this for any added insight on notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. If

(non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

1882 in Scandinavian music

1882 in Scandinavian music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We have articles for

Fram (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Also nominated for the same reasons:

1881 in Scandinavian music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fram (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet. And, for Reywas92, what merge target article are you suggesting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tadahiro Aizawa

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

Insignificant amateur stone tool collector, fails

WP:BEFORE. --Eelipe (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

@Absurdum4242: please sign your comment. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 222399

HD 222399 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass

WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:29, 7 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! 19:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 41162

HD 41162 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass

WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:30, 7 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! 19:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. While there is a slight majority of Keep opinions, they are not policy based but just "per X" arguments. So, I'm closing this as No consensus after 3 relistings. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 174569

HD 174569 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass

WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:30, 7 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! 19:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NASTCRIT says that notability is only presumed if at least one of the criteria is met, not granted. It shouldn't be taken as overriding the
general notability guideline, and that also applies to some of the other astronomy AfDs currently ongoing. 2804:14C:CCA1:4388:2234:D116:58EC:4E69 (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
A general guideline isn't an absolute guideline, in most cases just satisfying the criteria above is enough. 21 Andromedae (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. If someone would like this in draft space, happy to provide. Enough of a case has been made for why a redirect is, in this case, not a helpful to the reader ATD Star Mississippi 03:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JakeFuture27

JakeFuture27 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Don't think

WP:SIGCOV is met. His follower/view counts are not indicative of someone inherently notable, and the sources used would on the whole not be considered reliable. I T B F 📢 02:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm not sure what part you disagree with, the "people will receive no information" part or the "generally that page is reserved" part. Anyway, the article itself says in the second sentence: The following is a list of YouTubers for whom Wikipedia has articles either under their own name or their YouTube channel name. For any YouTuber without an article on that page, it is very likely their channel has an article instead. If neither are the case, it seems as if such person should be removed from the list, but I haven't been able to find any entries where that might be the case. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify this; if people want an alternative to deletion, this would be the way for it, as the article here isn't even two weeks old. Did a spot check of incoming links, and there are zero redirects for individuals' names pointed to List of YouTubers. Which is impressive given the fact that the page has hundreds and hundreds of entries with only a handful of incoming redirects, and none are for people. No reason for this to be the only one. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Some coverage out there, but none really that would warrant a separate article for now. Maybe in a few months, he'll be notable enough. Procyon117 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is Future his real surname? It otherwise feels strange to refer to them so formally. IgelRM (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I've analyzed the sources at
    the general notability guideline, and Google gives me junk
    .
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable?
Significant coverage?
 Count source toward
GNG
?
"JakeFuture27". YouTube.
 No No
WP:SPS
 No ✘ No
"What happened to Jake Future?". Distractify. Joseph Allen. 17 December 2024. Archived from the original on January 22, 2025. Retrieved January 21, 2025.
 Yes No See
WP:DISTRACTIFY
 Yes 431 words of coverage ✘ No
"Who Is Jake Future? Kick Streamer's Career Explored". Deltias Gaming. Adhiraj Yadav. 27 December 2024. Archived from the original on January 22, 2025. Retrieved January 20, 2025.
 Yes No Seems to be a
blog/amateur passion project (about page
), and the tone of the article is somewhat promotional 		Yes 412 words of coverage ✘ No
"Streamer and His Mother Left Speechless, Eyes Filled with Tears After Adin Ross' Kind Gesture". EssentiallySports. Rituraj Halder. 17 June 2023. Archived from the original on January 22, 2025. Retrieved January 20, 2025.
 Yes No Unreliable per this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive_29#EssentiallySports No 111 words of coverage ✘ No
"What did an ex-Kick employee say about a streamer struggling with cancer?". Dot Esports. Hayley Andrews. 19 June 2024. Archived from the original on January 22, 2025. Retrieved January 20, 2025.
 Yes No Quality is questionable for FAC (
WP:VG/S
) which means this should NOT be used for a BLP; such articles need the best sources available. 		No Passing mention ✘ No
"Everyone Drake Blessed During His 'Drizzmas Giveaway'". Complex. Tara Mahadevan. 28 December 2024. Retrieved January 21, 2025.
 Yes Yes
WP:A/S
 No No mention of the subject(s) ✘ No
"Sneako criticizes streamers for ignoring Jake Future's birthday invite: 'Not even a reply!'". The Express Tribune. 11 December 2024. Archived from the original on January 22, 2025. Retrieved January 20, 2025.
 Yes ~
WP:NEWSORGINDIA
 No 272 words of coverage ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) talk/edits 14:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. The argument that a city councilor for a large city is inherently notable is a reasonable one based on first common sense, but as it is not codified - POLOUTCOMES does not count as codification - I cannot overrule counterarguments that holding such a position is insufficient, and in this case the latter argument has drawn more support. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Chico

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

As a city councilman, fails

WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: POLOUTCOMES is not a community endorsed guideline or policy. It is instead a recording of what has happened. But when challenged an article should be shown to be notable and not by relying on the OUTCOMES page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here. Let's give it another week. But this could close as "No consensus" depending on input over the next 7 days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social pornography

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

Only a single English-language source, and it's an opinion piece that does not appear to refer to the alleged Norwegian concept. No evidence that this is a notable concept—seems like a translated neologism. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 01:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Marques (football manager)

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

Another sub-standard page created by

WP:GNG, and the subject of the article is very irrelevant, TBH. I'd also recommend a topic ban for the user, removing the user's rights to create pages, since several other users complained about the quality of the articles overall, and it has not improved ever since. BRDude70 (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

This is the last thing I will say about this on this deletion discussion: I have no idea why you are bringing up articles I have made a year ago... I have apologized, owned up to my old stuff and have clearly improved since then... if the whole issue is that I should go back and improve them, sure, I will put that on my priorities... ... you still have not clarified how your articles are somehow so superior to my recent ones. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:FOOTY/Players
.
I only brought up old articles because you promised in your talk page, more than once, to improve your old creations. I didn't see you do so in every time you promised that. You only created more and more articles, which led to more and more warnings, and more and more empty promises.
Giving you a little perspective: it only took me a minute to find out Marques' full name and POB. All we asked you is more effort to create pages, to avoid more complains. Is not that hard, is it? :) BRDude70 (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lol my bad, I kept on interpreting it as mainly complaining about problems with recent ones instead of the improvement of old ones... I misunderstood the emphasis on the fixing of old creations so kept on creating new articles to show improvement. I am going to vastly improve many old articles, starting with the three above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Big things (Australia). ✗plicit 01:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Bicycle

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

Performed

WP:BEFORE in Proquest, Newspapers.com and Google Search. Of the three sources used, the Atlas Obscura page is user generated. The other two pages are clearly not independent, promoting accommodation and merchandise. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete; search turned up no apparent notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:28, 29 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2025_January_29&oldid=1274252155"