Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Purge

19 March 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

< March 18 March 20 >

Purge server cache

Tammy O'Rourke

[edit]
Tammy O'Rourke (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 person does not appear to meet WP:GNG/WP:NACTOR. The page was redirected to Heather O'Rourke, her more well known sister, for several years; however, there has recently been some back and forth with a user trying to recreate the article, so I'm taking to AfD to establish consensus. All of her film roles appear to be quite minor, and the sources that mention her mainly do so in the context of her sister's death. I think restoring the redirect to Heather O'Rourke would be a viable option, although I'm open to other alternatives. Zeibgeist (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cordalene

[edit]
Cordalene (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)

Virtually unreferenced article about a band not properly demonstrated as passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because their music exists, and have to show WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them and their music -- but the only "reference" cited here is an AllMusic profile that's effectively just a directory entry, as it contains none of the written content (like a "biographical" profile of the band) that would be required to render AllMusic into a GNG-building source. And the level of detail here goes surprisingly deep for an article with so few sources, suggesting the distinct probability of WP:COI editing by a band member.
As for the NMUSIC criteria, this tries for "number of albums released" (which actually also has conditions around the notability of the label that the albums were released on, but those are unmet here) and "toured" (which requires coverage about the tour, and is not instantly met just because the article has the word "tour" in it).
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without proper sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Delhi (1783)

[edit]
Battle of Delhi (1783) (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 far as I can read in the cited sources (some are unreliable [1]), this is not even a battle; it is about plundering, collecting tribute, and building Gurudwaras, a topic which isn't really notable enough to deserve it's own article. The cited sources do not call it the "Battle of Delhi" even once.If necessary, we can redirect this page to the Sikh attacks on Delhi. AlvaKedak (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Albanian film chronicles

[edit]
List of Albanian film chronicles (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)

List with unclear and subjective inclusion criteria. "Film chronicle" isn't a concept with a clear and unambiguous definition -- I can surmise that the films listed here are based on historical events, but that's a characteristic that can encompass both documentaries and fictionalized narrative films. So it's not at all clear where the line would be drawn between "based on historical events" and "actually fitting the precise technical definition of a chronicle", and thus the basis for inclusion here is down to personal interpretation rather than objective reliable source classification.
Lists of "film chronicles" do not otherwise exist for any other country but Albania, and we don't even have an article about the base concept of a "film chronicle" either. And when it comes to the more clear and unambiguous classification of documentary films (which some, but not all, of the films listed here would be), List of Albanian documentary films already exists (although it does need improvement as well), so converting this into a list of documentary films isn't necessary.
Further, this is just a list of entirely unlinked titles -- but the principal function of a list is to help readers find Wikipedia articles, so a list consisting entirely of unlinked names isn't useful. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of defunct special forces units

[edit]
List of defunct special forces units (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 is an almost completely unsourced list, mostly of entries which lack a Wikipedia article, which adds little value since it lacks any definition or criteria for what constitutes "defunct" or even a "special forces" unit. Large amounts of the entries here do not fit the standard traditional definitions of special forces per the main List of military special forces units article. This article was PROD-ed without comment or objection for well over the required 7-day minimum before @Necrothesp: deprodded it requesting it be taken to AfD on the basis that it "may be notable" (unclear what that's referring to on a list article), so here we are. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Universal dialectic

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

Appears to have been created to promote an editor's own original ideas and personal website (no longer online). The only source is to a predatory journal.[2] Patrick (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello My Beautiful Creatures

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

No evidence found of notability, the GamingTrend source is apparently the only time some source has given attention to this. Nothing in GNews, very little in regular Google[3]. Fram (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was redirected[4], but article creator objects. Fram (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and then redirect. The film is not independently notable outside of the YouTuber. Since there's a higher chance that there may be people coming in from the outside, I want to explain this:
On Wikipedia notability is not inherited. This means that the film is not automatically notable because the YouTuber might pass notability guidelines. To establish notability per WP:NFILM you need to show where the movie has received coverage in independent, secondary sources that would be considered reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines. This last part is important, as not every source is considered reliable and usable per Wikipedia's guidelines. I searched, but wasn't able to find where this film has received the necessary coverage - most places that mention it are either routine database lists, self-published sites that wouldn't be considered reliable per Wikipedia guidelines, for something else entirely, or are junk hits (ie, site just mirrors your search term).
It's extremely, extremely difficult to establish notability for things on Wikipedia, but especially for anything associated with YouTube. Things that establish popularity on there don't count towards notability on here (favorites, subscribes, likes, etc). Media outlets typically don't cover YouTubers and YouTube related topics unless they're extremely major. I've written an essay about how difficult it is to establish notability - for example, PewDiePie's article was deemed non-notable until just before he became the most subscribed person on YouTube. So if it's that difficult to establish notability for a person, it's far more difficult to establish notability for something a YouTuber created. It's not a knock against the YouTuber or YouTubers in general, just that YouTubers are typically ignored by media outlets and other RS until they're in the top 1% of the 1% of YouTube personalities. Even then it's more likely that they won't be covered.
As for why I'm arguing for delete and then redirect, that's to prevent people from trying to recreate the article by removing the redirect. They still could try to create it, but I've found that deleting the article tends to be a bit of a deterrent. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, per WP:VG/RS, Gaming Trend is not considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia. It looks like it's probably been revamped since it was discussed back in 2019, so it might pass now - but would need some discussion at WP:VG to accomplish this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong authentication

[edit]
Strong authentication (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 whole article looks like WP:SYNTH of a vague concept that has no real definition but is also unsuitable for a broad concept article in my view. Happy to be convinced otherwise, though. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT -- this basically just discusses the term. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Leadership Initiative

[edit]
Muslim Leadership Initiative (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 noted a year ago, this and an accompanying article appear non-notable pieces created by the related organisations as puff pieces. Ogress 15:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom Hartman Institute

[edit]
Shalom Hartman Institute (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. This article is cruft and appears written and edited by a participant. I recommend deletion, it does not appear notable. Ogress 15:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Nostitz

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

No reliable secondary sourcing at present. Neither a books nor a scholar search yielded significant coverage for me. Appears to fail WP:ANYBIO. People reference his work, but I can’t find evidence he is recognised as a significant contributor to his field. OsFish (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Niknam

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ali Niknam (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 Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline (GNG). Although Ali Niknam is the founder of bunq, most of the available sources write about the company more than the individual Niknam. His other business, including team.blue, and philanthropic efforts receive minimal coverage that depends mostly on primary sources, interviews, self-published works, and specialty outlets. The fact that there isn't substantial, in-depth coverage by independent, credible sources also creates the problem that the article reads more as a promotional bio than an encyclopedic entry. Even in the credible sources such as De Tijd and FD.nl, Niknam's significance is presented as being through his connection to bunq, and his billionaire status is presented based on the company's valuation itself rather than standing alone. According to WP:NOTPROMO and WP:BLP1E, this article fails to create independent notability. I also checked his sources which are also presented below and not showing any sign for independent notability.

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
""We keep our business model flexible": Interview with bunq's founder Ali". EU-Startups.
 Yes Independent startup news platform. Yes Direct interview with Niknam; relevant to business strategy. No Promotional interview lacking third-party analysis. ✘ No
Yes Specialized fintech news outlet. Yes Reports verifiable growth metrics. No discusses Key statistics for bunq’s market presence. ✘ No
Yes Established Belgian financial newspaper. No Interview coverage of Niknam’s business impact. Yes Significant for financial analysis and career context. ✘ No
Yes Reputable financial ranking publication. Yes Covers Niknam’s net worth and business ranking. No Validates billionaire status via independent ranking. ✘ No
Yes Trusted fintech industry publication. Yes Analyzes bunq’s technical innovation. No Explains bunq’s tech-driven model. ✘ No
Niche business blog; unclear editorial oversight. Yes Quotes Niknam’s leadership philosophy. No Limited to leadership statements; lacks broader context. ✘ No
Yes Specialized fintech news site. Yes Analyzes bunq’s bootstrapped growth. No Discusses bunq's unique business strategy. ✘ No
Yes Industry-focused publication. Yes Discusses market trends. No Indirect relevance to Niknam’s work. ✘ No
No Small outlet; potential promotional ties. Yes Includes CEO statements on innovation. No Lacks critical analysis. ✘ No
Yes Financial education platform. No Interview which details Niknam’s investment in bunq. Yes Explains founder’s motivations and funding. ✘ No
No Corporate website (self-published). Yes Basic executive bio. No Self-promotional; verify via third parties. ✘ No
Niknam, Ali (2011). Ondernemers hebben nooit geluk. Written Books. ISBN 9789089544205. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)
 No Self-published memoir. No Subjective; lacks editorial oversight. No Personal opinions; avoid unless corroborated. ✘ No
Yes Reputable European tech news site. Yes Marks company milestones. No Validates bunq’s growth timeline. ✘ No
Yes Major national newspaper. Yes Reports on bunq’s acquisition. No bunq's Key expansion detail. ✘ No
Yes Established tech news outlet. Yes Covers funding round. No Confirms bunq's unicorn valuation. ✘ No
Archived blog; unknown editorial standards. No Unverified humanitarian claims. No Requires corroboration. ✘ 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}}.

Nyasalones (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The last AfD was closed less than two weeks ago as keep. Several sources cited in that discussion as counting towards the GNG are not mentioned in this source assessment table. Discussing this again immediately does not seem appropriate – the essay WP:RENOM suggests If the XfD discussion was closed as “keep”, generally do not renominate the page for at least six months, unless there is something new to say, and even so, usually wait a few months. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just checked the last discussion. There were many ip editors voting keep. This article seems heavily influenced by bunq marketing team. Tarrymucks (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the five "keep" voters in the previous discussion, only one was an IP editor; there were only two IP editors who took part in the entire discussion and one of them did not !vote. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails independent significant coverage. Mostly sources seems self published which talks about his billionaire status. Sources that are actually independent are focused on bunq.Tarrymucks (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging @Fram, Zaathras, Melody Concerto, Spokeoino, Rimesodom, Loewstisch, NenChemist, and Bobby Cohn: to notify contributors from the last discussion Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, previous AfD closed as Keep very recently, as nom well knows (they participated in it). if you disagree with a close, you take it up with the closing admin, and if not satisfied with their answer you can go to WP:DRV. But just restarting an AfD is disruptive. Fram (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, previous discussion was recently closed as keep after being reopened a 3 time. I find this very strange, on one side some of the sources are not notable or independent enough, on the other, the ones that are notable refer also to his company? If a person has a company evaluated at 1.6 billion[1][2] and does not participate in major politics or scandals this seems appropriate. Wikipedia:GNG also states that "no fixed number of sources [are] required" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spokeoino (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.siliconrepublic.com/start-ups/bunq-capitalflow-acquisition-dutch-unicorn-funding
  2. ^ https://www.lendacademy.com/de-nederlandsche-bank-dnb-approves-deal-valuing-amsterdams-fintech-unicorn-bunq-at-e1-6b/

List of children of vice presidents of the United States

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of children of vice presidents of the United States (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:NLIST. The 2023 Afd keep rationales are unconvincing. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - You'll have to be more specific about how WP:NLIST applies here. We have long had List of children of presidents of the United States regardless of how they lived their lives. In fact, we have an entire category Category:Children of presidents of the United States. Wikipedia seems to have held VP notability issues equal with the Presidential notabilities issues. — Maile (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails NLIST as there is no SIGCOV of the subjects as a group. The keep vote above should be discounted because it talks about how it inherently compares to a different list (even though pointing out other articles is not a valid AFD argument), and much of the keep !votes in the prior AFD are WP:ILIKEIT-based arguments. Frank Anchor 14:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are 35 sources on this. Of course there has been coverage of them as a group, and as individuals. As a group, they lived in different centuries, different decades. Can anyone think of significant coverage as the List of children of presidents of the United States? Of course not. They lived in different eras, different centuries. I would suggest that anyone wanting to delete this on lack of sourcing have a good look at the sourcing: Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc., Smithsonian Magazine, the New York Times, the LBJ Library, CNN, etc. — Maile (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re welcome to look into that sourcing, while remembering that NLIST specifies coverage of these individuals as a group. As of now, such coverage does not exist. Frank Anchor 17:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Asansol Municipal Corporation election

[edit]
2027 Asansol Municipal Corporation election (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)

Lacks Notability. TOOSOON. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON and WP:ROUTINE. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 18:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Runningfox

[edit]
Joseph Runningfox (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)

Actor of questionable notability. His portrayal of Geronimo has a lot of hits but nothing I can find that isn't a trivial mention. Mbdfar (talk) 12:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bedia (caste)

[edit]
Bedia (caste) (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 current articulation of this article presents multiple issues related to the reliability and verifiability of web sources, as outlined in such problematic insertion WP:Problem. A significant concern is the reliance on sources that fail to meet Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability, often resurfacing conspicuous site mapping from government portals suchlike Jarkhandculture.gov.in without proper attribution or independent supplemental pro-analysis. This raises concerns about original research and potential WP:SYNTH violations. Sailedwarrior (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This caste exists, and there are several journals that discuss things about it [11], [12], these talk about a rather unpleasant type of human trafficking that deal with this group in particular. Those were the first two I pulled up; Gscholar has many more journal articles that talk about the caste. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iron bird (aviation)

[edit]
Iron bird (aviation) (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)

lack sufficient notability and reliable sources Loewstisch (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ratneshwar Mukherjee

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

Appears to fail WP:NMUSICIAN/WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE search didn't turn up anything of substance to help establish notability. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Astra Tech

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Astra Tech (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 references in the article currently consist of routine coverage (WP:ROUTINE). Fails WP:NCORP. And a strong indication of WP:COI. Bakhtar40 (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zemax

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Zemax (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 was originally deleted in 2005, and restored in 2008 - not sure why, really, because it's entirely unreferenced and the amount of external links in the body says WP:BROCHURE to me. I did do a WP:BEFORE just to make sure there wasn't a bunch of coverage, but I couldn't find anything. MediaKyle (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leech (2025 film)

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

Draft moved back to main space without improvisation. Lacks Notability. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Southern Asia

[edit]
List of World Heritage Sites in Southern Asia (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 pointed out by MPGuy2824, this does not meet WP:NLIST. No source talks about World Heritage Sites in Southern Asia. UNESCO itself divides their heritage sites into five regions: Africa, Arab States, Asia and the Pacific, Europe and North America, Latin America and the Caribbean. Southern Asia is not one of those regions, and this is correlated in reliable sources. Thus, the existence of this list is WP:SYNTH. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As shown in Template:Lists of World Heritage Sites, there have always been regional lists for World Heritage Sites. It's not synthesis or original research to merely subdivide the continents with recognizable regions for more reasonably sized lists. Reywas92Talk 17:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jendele Hungbo

[edit]
Jendele Hungbo (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 and WP:NPROF Ibjaja055 (talk) 09:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Galaja resistance (1992)

[edit]
Galaja resistance (1992) (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 is a very minor incident, and while it has been mentioned by witnesses during war crimes trials related to the actions of Serbs in the area in 1992, I have not been able to locate any long-form reliable source such as a reputable news article that talks about this fighting in any detail. It is not mentioned in any way in the comprehensive CIA history of the 90s wars in the former Yugoslavia, Balkan Battlegrounds. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Family Coalition Party of British Columbia

[edit]
Family Coalition Party of British Columbia (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:ORG. Defunct provincial political party whose electoral results never exceeded half a percent of the popular vote. There is therefore no obvious claim of notability. The one reference provided, a book written by UBC professor Chris MacKenzie, does describe the background and founders of the party in-depth. However, I could not find multiple examples of in-depth coverage by reliable sources, and I do not think the coverage from MacKenzie's work alone is enough to establish long lasting notability. Yue🌙 08:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Killbill Society

[edit]
Killbill Society (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)

Draft moved back to main space without adding any substance which justify notability. Fails GNG. Rahmatula786 (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3 more references were added before moving it to mainspace. NotAharshi (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Apart from the film’s announcement and poster, there hasn’t been any significant coverage yet.Better to keep in draft till release date and hopefully multiple critical reviews are found that will also help with notability.
    AShiv1212 (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Already drafted once, but editor moved it back . can’t be drafted again. Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. After further consideration, I’ve reviewed the three references added by NotAharshi, and they don’t provide significant, independent coverage to meet WP:GNG—mostly promotional or trivial mentions. Since the article was already drafted once and moved back to mainspace without substantial improvement, as Rahmatula786 pointed out, and with the release date (April 11, 2025) still weeks away, there’s no evidence of notability yet. Deletion seems appropriate unless stronger sources are provided.
    AShiv1212 (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm finding some coverage in Bengali thanks to Google Translate, but so far it seems to be the same 2-4 articles slightly reworded. There's really not much about the production other than actor announcements and comments on their appearance in promotional photos. A few people have noted that India media outlets are particularly prone to WP:CHURNALISM and this seems to be the case here so far. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charu Chandra Bandyopadhyay

[edit]
Charu Chandra Bandyopadhyay (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)

Insufficient Sources. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury-Bankstown

[edit]
Canterbury-Bankstown (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 page is redundant as there is the council page for City of Canterbury-Bankstown which covers this region and is the official local government area WP:Duplicate article. All information from this page can be merged onto City of Canterbury-Bankstown which can cover both customary region and government district. Alternatively this article could be rebranded 'Inner South-West' as per the ABS region of the same name however that would then need to merge the St George region article into this page which should remain a separate article on its own. YolandaBeCool1 (talk) 06:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marss

[edit]
Marss (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 have used a lot of unreliable sources and fails WP:GNG. Did WP:BEFORE but found only this trivia coverage from Kotaku [15]; thus zero WP:SIGCOV. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isai (gamer)

[edit]
Isai (gamer) (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)

100% Fails WP:GNG + Zero WP:SIGCOV while doing WP:BEFORE. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nairo (gamer)

[edit]
Nairo (gamer) (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. The article uses a lot of unreliable sources, while WP:BEFORE came up with nothing substantial, and only this [16] is a bit usable (this source is in used already). 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samsora

[edit]
Samsora (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)

Zero WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE shows no reliable sources. Most of the sources that have been used here are mostly unreliable, while other reliable was just he won 2019 but that's it. I'm suspecting Nairo (gamer) has the same fate like this article. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The unfortunate reality is that there just aren't many high quality sources covering esports. ESPN shuttered their coverage, the listings at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Esports are pretty small press, and many are region-specific or esport-specific to MOBAs. However, I think I cobbled together enough from the best sources that were available to pass the bar of WP:GNG. At the time that I wrote the article, they were a professionally signed player with major tournament wins, and considered one of the best players in the world in a notable esport by the community-accepted ranking system (If Red Bull is a RS and they devote extensive coverage to the Panda Global rankings, that should be enough). It's been a long time since I participated in AfD, so I'm out of practice and that's the best argument I can make at this time. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they might be reliable like ESPN, but it has only trivia coverage; thus not a sigcov (wouldn't help its notability). 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 07:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EtherealX

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

No coverage after the funding round in August 2024, except for the Indo-US defense program news. Existing sources are either press releases, unbylined or interviews, which are not enough for WP:NCORP. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Pictures

[edit]
Dawn Pictures (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)

All the sources in the article relate to the respective films produced by Dawn Pictures and do not provide any coverage of the production house itself. Not a single source in the article has significant coverage of the subject rather, they are all passing mentions in routine film announcements. Subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Les Borsai

[edit]
Les Borsai (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:ANYBIO. The Business Insider is the only reference that comes close to being in-depth about the subject and even that is just about an investment he made. The rest are interviews, brief mentions, cyproblogs, etc. Already draftified once and declined through AfC. CNMall41 (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Interviews cannot be used to establish notability. Neither can YouTube videos or press releases. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Expertise is why mainstream media outlets interview someone, right? ~~~ Scenecontra (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Please see WP:RS. Being interviewed does not make them an expert. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And, if the above comment you left is a !vote, please format it properly. I do not want to change it as I am unsure what your vote is. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting to keep and have added the word 'keep' but not sure if the formatting is right even now. Scenecontra (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then please format it correctly. WP:CIR.
And since you are not responding on your talk page and your attention is here, please review the messages there and provide a response. There are numerous edits who share the same concern. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep :Hello all!
Please see my changes and the additional citation links I've added to the Wikipedia article.
I believe the article is worth keeping because this person is noteworthy for multiple reasons:
Co-founded Wave Financial, a digital asset management and investment firm, and the first NFT fund in the world.
Wave Financial won ‘Best in Class’ for Asset-backed tokens at the Tokenized Assets & Digitized Securities Awards (TADS), and breached over $500 million USD in assets under management.
Borsai is an author at SPIN magazine, where he writes about music and technology.
Borsai has spoken and lectured at the Milken Institute 2022 Global Conference Panel, the Basel institute on Governance, Coindesk, the NFT Expoverse 2022 Los Angeles, MiamiNFT Week, 2024 Asia Blockhain Summit, SALT, the BIBA AML Conference on crypto compliance & enforcement, San Francisco Data Summit 2022, the Blockchain Economic Forum 2019, Web3Expo, the Future of Digital Assets event at Kenan Institute, and UCLA Anderson's IMPACT week 2018.
He is currently working on producing a documentary. In 2022, Coindesk Studios announced Les Borsai will be producing the Crypto Documentary 'Gatecrasher' along with Stick Figure Productions founder Steven Cantor. Camillili (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From my limited experience @Camillili, unless you have the word 'keep' in bold, your vote won't get counted. I am stating this since you are talking about keeping and not in bold. Scenecontra (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More Links to prove notability as a speaker and voice in the cryptocurrency area Scenecontra (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC) https://archive2.salt.org/speakers/les-borsai[reply]

https://abs.io/abs024/speakers/les-borsai/

https://www.offshorealert.com/profile/les-borsai/?srsltid=AfmBOoojZQtAhbahTET9cVHF62XpdOumYd0lgEs5Pj9r0DG2hyz6L1Wo

https://grabien.com/file/getmedia?id=2833922&key=3f168f9dcf6eb390a4cec18a09129559&userid=8869&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR33hRboWa3QalMuAOYCfXMURGmmIsphuG8tToMsyu1A_74pVfBKaceRjUM_aem_t4wiWSSRnKQyFOydnTBx4Q

https://americasvoice.news/video/Mdj4wlCDoZudt8F/?related=category&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3aJj5SoDE7aFBFGbBWS_45AdfB32kZ7_o-cz3bjwseQ6N2KdmTKi3-zGQ_aem_4QjAGDf8nYLKXyzeJIA-7w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4fouRMsfk4&list=PL5rDfH3ofGEe8rCbwJojpipmwwkvWhbQD&index=1

Found another link, this is not an interview and written by a journalist on Forbes.com: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobwolinsky/2022/04/27/manager-of-worlds-first-nft-fund-talks-nft-evolution-and-the-future-of-crypto-assets/

Scenecontra (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC) Edited to fix formatting. Scenecontra (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old link of him being a producer https://www.espn.co.uk/nhl/story/_/id/8077105/rob-zombie-produce-film-philadelphia-flyers-broad-street-bullies Scenecontra (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University events and links for consideration to Keep the article
https://www.sustain.ucla.edu/event/ucla-anderson-impact-week-impact-on-the-blockchain/
https://blogs.anderson.ucla.edu/anderson/2018/04/the-purpose-economy.html
https://kenaninstitute.unc.edu/defi/index.php/thursday-agenda/
Scenecontra (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hmr:, "Forbes Books" does not exist. The link is to a podcast which is not independent. Same as an interview. The first couple paragraphs are his bio, not independent writing from a journalist. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked around. One has to 'qualify' to be published by Forbes Books:https://books.forbes.com/who-qualifies/
The subject was a featured guest on their podcast: https://books.forbes.com/author-podcasts/forbesbooks-podcast/featured-guest-les-borsai/
Yes, it's like an interview but they wouldn't interview anyone and everyone but only people who meet the cut. Scenecontra (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes Books does exist, but it looks separate from Forbes. Hmr (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's being used by Advantage Media Group, under license from Forbes Media LLC. It's subdomain on Forbes domain and so can't be some shady place. Scenecontra (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its a podcast. Not indepedent. Wouldn't matter if its the New York Times or Wall Street Journal. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any significant secondary coverage of this person to demonstrate notability, and until we see that, all the interviews in the world don't mean much. I am also worried about the COI issues around this page but that doesn't change what I see in search results Moritoriko (talk) 06:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Boudriot

[edit]
Jean Boudriot (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)

Lacking in real sources for WP:BIO, and no reviews that I can find for his book, Le vaisseau de 74 canons, for WP:AUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : The Fr Wiki article is only a list of national catalogue listings used a sourcing and a list of books. The sourcing is even worse than what's here... I can only find this review of one of his books [17]. I don't see enough sourcing to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This review in the Naval War College journal (?, I'm not sure if it's a magazine or a formal academic jouranl) seems to help this person pass AUTHOR [18]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep per the two reviews Oaktree found, bearing in mind that most sources about the subject are likely to be a) offline and b) in French. – Joe (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now looking like No Consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rhombic hectotriadiohedron

[edit]
Rhombic hectotriadiohedron (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 meeting WP:NOTABILITY. No reliable sources in books or journals mentions about such solid. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel AI

[edit]
Squirrel AI (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)

Unambiguous advertising, notability quite questionable. It was a contested prod a long time ago, so here we are. MediaKyle (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

K-dron

[edit]
K-dron (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 to meet WP:CRITERIA per lack of supported sources in Google Books and Scholars; only one or two. Some possible plagiarism detected in [25], which translates from Polish to English. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 19. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 03:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Mathematically this is not of significance but the question is whether we can find enough coverage of this as a design element to make up for that. Skipping all Kapusta-authored sources as non-independent, the Górska source is independent but does not provide in-depth coverage, and neither does Moskal, "Virtual and Real: K-dron and light", in SIGGRAPH 2004, despite its title. Other sources I looked at, that mention K-drons but without in-depth coverage of the shape itself, are Żarinow's "Recepcja scenografii w Polsce wczoraj i dziś", Możdżyński's "Naukowe Fascynacje Sztuki. Przegląd Arbitralny", Orzechowski's "Teaching Drawing, Painting and Sculpture at the Faculty of Architecture of the Warsaw University of Technology, classics and modernity", Smith's "From here to infinity" [26], and Kraus's All the Art That's Fit to Print [27]. [28] and [29] have some depth but I am skeptical of their independence and reliability. The Kapproff book is independent, reliably published, and with in-depth coverage, but it is only one source; we need multiple such sources. [30] is paywalled so I could not check its depth. So for now to me this is borderline, but with one more source as good as the Kapproff book I could be pushed to a weak keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vernacular Music Research

[edit]
Vernacular Music Research (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)

Unfortunately, I can't find enough sources for this to pass GNG (though I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong). There's an hour-long presentation and... just nothing else. Even the obituary of founder Thornton Hagert has just a few sentences about it. Hagert himself doesn't seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC for his musicology work or WP:MUSICBIO as a musician. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Museums and libraries, and Pennsylvania. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I haven't found anything on the archive. For Thornton Hagert, though, there is a 3 column obituary in the Philadelphia Daily News [31]; he was asked by the Smithsonian to recreate a 1924 concert, and produced 10 page liner notes for the resulting album, which was nominated for two Grammys in 1982 (Best Historical Album and Best Liner notes) [32] (album review in the Institute for Studies in American Music Newsletter. here: [33]); review of another album for which he wrote 6 pages of liner notes in The San Francisco Examiner [34] and of another one here [35]; and there are other reviews of his writings coming up in a Google Scholar search. It seems to me that he would probably meet WP:AUTHOR (etc). RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment based on RebeccaGreen's work, would it be sensible to move the current article to Thornton Hagert ("Thornton Hagert was a musicologist and jazz historian who founded the Vernacular Music Archive, an archive...")? Initially, the result would be a bit of a coatrack article, but it would retain what's of use from Vernacular music research, and it would form a stub with the potential to grow into something useful on the man himself. Elemimele (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem Demsas

[edit]
Jerusalem Demsas (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 and WP:NAUTHOR. Lacks direct and in-depth coverage in independent secondary sources. Self-auhtored articles are not enough to prove her notability. Gheus (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:
Multiple references show significant, not trivial, coverage in independent secondary sources, discussing her early life (references 1-5), professional career and her views and contributions to the discussion of the housing crisis. An important notability factor (WP:AUTHOR) relies on the following: The person's work (or works) has won significant critical attention. Her book has received has significant critical attention, including book reviews in major sites including Vox and Bloomberg News (ref 9), which stated that Demsas "has distinguished herself within the supply-side camp." Her overall work has led to multiple high profile interviews, including on Bloomberg (ref. 9), NPR (ref. 11) and Ezra Klein's NYTimes interview (ref. 12), indicating her work has had significant attention. Per WP:NAUTHOR, references 8 & 9 show she is known for originating a significant new concept, further enhancing her notability. Included in the article were her opinions on the housing crisis; there is no Wikipedia injunction against discussing a subject's views. There is no Wikipedia injunction against using the subject's self-authored published works in reputable publications to verify the information presented. The references discussed above were used to verify Demsas' views, not to establish notability. And, only 4/23 references even fall within that purview. In brief: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (Wikipedia:Notability (people)). The article meets all criteria.
I note that the first reviewer (Ipigott]) did not see a problem with this article, and later removed a tag stating that this article may not achieve notability, claiming that "del tag - no longer applicable." Mwinog2777 (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was because additional pertinent work had been carried out on the article.--Ipigott (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that she meets WP:AUTHOR. A search of Newspapers.com shows a lot of columnists in other newspapers basing columns on articles by Demsas in The Atlantic and critiquing what she has written. So far I've found examples in The Indianapolis Star, The Herald-Palladium, Sun Journal (Lewiston, Maine), and The San Francisco Examiner, by 5 different columnists. I'll try to add them to the article. (Before searching, I had thought this might be a case of TOOSOON, as she joined The Atlantic only 3 years ago, in 2022. But it's clear that she very quickly had a big impact.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm not seeing the kind of coverage required to meet WP:NJOURNALIST. Some participants above are citing discussion of her work ([36], [37]) as WP:SIGCOV of her, which it's not (that's more of an WP:NACADEMIC criterion). These are mentions, not independent reviews of her body of work required to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Meanwhile, the Bits and Deets article should be deleted as an unreliable blog that scrapes personal info and aggregates it as SEO bait. The rest of the sources appear to be her own work or WP:INTERVIEWs. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:Interviews: "A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability." The multiple interviews listed were done by highly reputable outlets, including the New York Times and NPR. The interviews were presented as investigative journalism with the interview material often interspersed with the interviewer's own analysis and thoughts. Please review the interviews.Mwinog2777 (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acy Ramos

[edit]
Acy Ramos (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 Wikipedia:Notability (people). Notability and Inline citations have been challenged for almost 12 years. GSearch and GNews search only provided passing mentions. No notable awards found during search. --Lenticel (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hana Zagorová discography

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Hana Zagorová discography (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 had been successfully nominated for deletion in 2011, but never was deleted. The article should be merged into the article on the singer because it cites no RS and is undue. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Albums and songs, and Czech Republic. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment according to the logs it was deleted in 2011 but re-created in 2019. And the comment "it cites no RS" seems to not hold true either. Not only is there a source at the page, there is the Czech page with additional sources. So, before going into this further, what is the reason for deleting this page? C679 11:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or possibly redirect to the singer's article if "discography" is a likely search term. There really are no relaible sources on this page. The one footnote is to a directory listing for the singer's larger career and is not relevant for a list of every single one of her releases. The equivalent Czech WP article [38] is also dependent on sources that are either unreliable, or if they're reliable they are also about the singer and still do not support the all the items in this list. Regardless, she has a great number of releases over a long successful career, but presenting the list in this fashion possibly violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and we could cite WP:READABILITY too. The singer's article has a helpful list of studio albums and that is sufficient. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a long-standing tradition to split discographies into separate pages, see Category:Pop music discographies. And yes there are reliable sources. Also, all items are individually searchable and verifiable; it is an extremely popular singer in Czech lands. Take a random on: "Poslední šantán / Obraz smutný slečny". --Altenmann >talk 17:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conway triangle notation

[edit]
Conway triangle notation (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)

MathWorld is notorious for neologisms, and this is one. MathWorld in turn sources this notation only to an unpublished book manuscript that uses this notation only in the formulation of a single formula. My prod saying as much was reverted by User:Mast303 with no improvement and a WP:VAGUEWAVE at notability, so here we are. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't have an opinion on whether to keep or delete the article, but I will mention that I saw this notation a long time ago. I don't think it's a term coined by MathWorld, but admittedly I have no sources to back this up. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 00:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment. I created this article in 2008 because I noted that a number of published papers in projective geometry that I was reading at the time used the Conway notation as a short hand and there did not exist any scholarly article detailing the notation or how best to use it. The only reference at the time was the entry in MathWorld and it referred to Yiu, P. "Notation." §3.4.1 in Introduction to the Geometry of the Triangle. pp. 33-34, Version 2.0402, April 2002.
Deleting the article because an editor believes that "Conway triangle notation" is a neologism created by MathWord seems excessive and probably incorrect. I do not know who coined the phrase "Conway triangle notation" but details of the notation were published by Paul Yiu in his very popular and well cited Book/Journal, "Introduction to the Geometry of the Triangle" first published in 2001.
Today, many papers in geometry use the notation here is a recent example:-
Trigonometric Polynomial Points in the Plane of a Triangle by Clark Kimberling 1, and Peter J. C. Moses - see section 7 at https://www.mdpi.com/3042-402X/1/1/5.
I note that there are 2 other language versions of the article. The Dutch version also has no references. Will this be deleted by the same editor or will it remain? I believe there needs to be consistency.
Finally, I will insert 2 references into the article - The Paul Yiu reference mentioned above and a reference to the Encyclopedia of Triangle Centers and ETC Part 1 "Introduced on November 1, 2011: Combos" Note 6. - Frank M. Jackson (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 12:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment. Though the term "Conway triangle notation" may or may not have been created at MathWorld, the use of the notation goes back to the nineteenth century. The following reference has been supplied by Francisco Javier.
"Here it is a previous use of the nowadays known as Conway notation by a Spanish mathematician in the XIX century:
Juan Jacobo Durán Loriga,
"Nota sobre el triángulo", en El Progreso Matemático, tomo IV (1894), pages 313-316."
https://hemerotecadigital.bne.es/hd/es/viewer?id=60bef4e2-9410-4e51-8dca-5044fc99ba4a
Francisco Javier. Frank M. Jackson (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

City Winery

[edit]
City Winery (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 is a procedural nomination. Apparently I created this page as a redirect in 2015, then decided to "let's try an article", which suggests I was helping or doing cleanup for somebody (it's not the sort of article I would have spontaneously written). Anyway, it was recently PRODded, but I think a discussion on it is better. So discuss. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Organizations. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Draft:City Winery and Special:Permalink/666766371#Response to you jog the memory? Uncle G (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh right, I was doing NPP / AfC patrol, that figures. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Is not notable under the policy page. Violates these criteria for inclusion in the Encyclopedia:
    - Presumed: Tryptofish did find sources, but 5 news sources covering your business is not significant coverage.
    - Independent of the subject: "Each City Winery location is a fully functioning urban winery, importing grapes from all over the world to create unique locally made wines.". That is not a neutral tone. DotesConks (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good nomination, I agree wrt the rationale that PROD was unnecessary. There appears to be sufficient coverage in reliable secondary, independent third-party sources, over a period of time, to indicate both GNG and SIGCOV have been met. Cheers, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found these sources: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. None of them is particularly great in terms of establishing more than a passing mention, but I think there's just enough independent sourcing from various places to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Not a slam-dunk, but, I think, enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding, I can very much sympathize with editors who have had to deal with promotional editing, and I can agree that such disruption should not be rewarded. On the other hand, such edits, once they have been corrected, do not determine the notability of a subject. As I've said, the sourcing to establish notability here is not a slam-dunk, and I can accept that that's open to discussion, but if the page topic is notable, past bad conduct is not a policy-based reason to delete it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much @Tryptofish for taking the time to research for notability citations. It is deeply appreciated. This was quality research. I agree with you that abuse is not enough if a page is salvageable. That is an excellent point you make. The sourcing that you took the time to find, I agree, is not exactly a "slam-dunk." As you kindly opened them to discussion, I evaluated each one and have the following concerns:
    The sources provided to support keeping the City Winery article do not appear to me to meet Wikipedia's standards for establishing independent and substantial notability, as outlined in WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Each cited reference is either incidental, promotional, or superficial, failing to offer the depth and independent analysis required by Wikipedia's policies.
    The reference from Creating the Hudson River Park by Tom Fox is merely a mention of a business transaction. It indicates only that City Winery signed a lease at Pier 57 along with other businesses during a redevelopment project. Per WP:ROUTINE, such routine coverage does not establish notability beyond a basic directory listing or business note (WP:NOTADIRECTORY), lacking meaningful cultural or independent significance.
    Similarly, Weekends in Chicago from the Chicago Tribune Staff functions purely as paid promotional tourism content. According to WP:PROMO and WP:NOTADVERTISING, promotional material highlighting City Winery as one of many "Things to Do" in Chicago, which is an advertisement or paid placement, does not constitute substantial coverage that would establish independent notability.
    Likewise, The New Nashville Chef's Table by Stephanie Stewart operates as a promotional cookbook showcasing current Nashville businesses and venues, including City Winery, that happened to be operational and participate at the time of publication. Such material is explicitly promotional, encouraging dining and entertainment patronage, without genuine, independent cultural analysis or historical significance. Accepting this as evidence of notability would set a problematic precedent contradicting WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:NOTADVERTISING, potentially qualifying nearly every business featured in promotional publications as notable.
    Finally, Anthony DeCurtis's Lou Reed: A Life only briefly references City Winery in connection with Michael Dorf, who had minor professional ties with Lou Reed. WP:INHERIT explicitly states that notability is not inherited through association. The mention in DeCurtis's biography is peripheral and does not establish independent notability for City Winery. Accepting such a mention as proof of notability would imply that every venue Lou Reed performed at throughout his decades-long career is inherently notable. Given that Lou Reed performed extensively from around 1955 onwards and City Winery only opened for business in 2008, such reasoning would lead to untenable outcomes where countless venues would unjustifiably qualify for standalone Wikipedia articles based solely on association with the musician. Therefore, none of these sources provide the substantial, independent secondary-source coverage required by WP:GNG and WP:ORG to justify retaining the City Winery article on Wikipedia. Qinifer (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When I went looking for sources, I made a deliberate effort to avoid the pitfalls that you assert these four sources have. The first one I cited, by M.B. Bailey, which I don't think you commented on, spends a significant amount of text discussing how "City Winery in New York City illustrates how race may overlap with age and venue in Americana." As a secondary source, she also cites how primary opinions by other authors, specifically about City Winery, support this view. This becomes even more significant when taken alongside the source about Lou Reed, because it provides a context in which the page subject is seen by multiple sources as a culturally significant venue for musical performances. As portrayed by the source material, this isn't just any venue where Reed performed. That source also treats Dorf as someone who knew Reed well and was qualified to comment on Reed as a person, and who commented in the context of performance at that venue, in terms of the specific characteristics of that venue. As for the source about real estate by Fox, I can accept your point that it is the weakest of the sources that I chose to cite. But it isn't simply what you call it, "a mention of a business transaction". Rather, the source discusses that transaction in the context of a wider issue about neighborhood development, providing secondary commentary about how it plays a cultural role in the neighborhood. Either I am missing something, or you are mischaracterizing the two other sources, about reviewing the place as a restaurant. I see no evidence that these sources were paid to write about the Winery, or that they were simply repeating press release material. (I discarded other sources I came across, that did seem to me to fail on these points.) The Tribune staff are providing an independent restaurant review, which NORG explicitly distinguishes from paid placement about restaurants, and the Stewart source is a book about a movement or style in cooking, that provides a detailed and multi-page examination of specific dishes from the menu. These are independent sources about the restaurant, and they are far from in-passing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for taking the time to assess sources carefully. I appreciate the effort to ensure that a fair notability evaluation is made. However, I remain unconvinced that these sources meet the threshold for substantial, independent coverage required by WP:GNG as follows:
    But first, my apologies for neglecting the Bailey source. I meant no disrespect. That was an oversight, and I appreciate you pointing it out so that I could properly assess it. I had it open in my browser, read it, and must have mistakenly closed it and overlooked it when actually writing my response (too many tiny tabs open at once). Your work and the article deserve serious consideration.
    Upon review, the Bailey source discusses City Winery within the context of a broader analysis of Americana music and its relationship to race and age. While Bailey provides an interesting higher-level discussion, City Winery appears to be one of many venues used as an interchangeable example rather than being the focus of a sustained, in-depth examination of that particular business. Mentions within broader cultural studies do not automatically equate to independent notability for the venue itself, particularly if the analysis is primarily about a musical trend involving numerous equally interchangeable venues rather than City Winery’s unique role within it. If this were a sociological study focused specifically on how City Winery reshaped cultural dynamics, it might be different, but as it stands, this source does not establish lasting significance for City Winery itself.
    To clarify by way of example, the Apollo Theater in Harlem is widely recognized as a culturally and historically significant venue. The Apollo is documented in-depth for its role in shaping African American music history and advancing racial integration in not just entertainment, but the world at large. The Apollo was a crucial platform for launching the careers of artists such as Ella Fitzgerald, James Brown, and Aretha Franklin, and remains a symbol of lasting cultural and social impact. Performing at The Apollo is widely considered a milestone in an artist’s career. Playing The Apollo is regarded as a sign that artists have "arrived" at a certain level of prestige. There is no indication that City Winery holds a similar cultural weight or reputation. This extensive, independent, and well-documented influence of significant cultural impact is why the Apollo Theater meets notability requirements to justify a standalone article.
    By contrast, City Winery, founded in 2008, is one of many interchangeable venues referenced as part of a larger cultural moment, with no indication that it played a uniquely transformative role in shaping music history or social change like The Apollo has. City Winery is not singled out as particularly noteworthy in its own right. Instead, it is used as one interchangeable data point among many to illustrate a broader trend. For a venue to warrant a standalone article, there must be clear evidence of unique and lasting cultural significance, such as with The Apollo Theater, not just inclusion as an interchangeable example in a broader cultural study. If City Winery had a chapter-length examination detailing its role in shaping a music movement, as The Apollo does, it might be different, but instead, it is presented alongside numerous other interchangeable venues in a way that does not establish individual notability.
    Similarly, the Lou Reed source must be considered in context. If City Winery is one of many venues discussed in passing in a biography about Lou Reed, rather than being the subject of meaningful analysis in its own right, it does not meet WP:GNG’s depth requirement. Additionally, WP:NOTINHERITED applies both to the venue and to Dorf. A notable artist performing at a venue does not automatically confer lasting notability upon the venue itself without clear evidence of its distinct cultural impact, as in the Apollo Theater example above. Even if multiple sources acknowledge that Reed performed at City Winery, that alone does not elevate the venue’s independent encyclopedic significance.
    Likewise, the fact that Michael Dorf knew Lou Reed does not establish Dorf’s notability in his own right (WP:NOTINHERITED). Many individuals who knew Reed well have contributed substantive statements to biographical works about him, but that does not mean they each warrant their own Wikipedia articles, just as every venue mentioned in the biography does not automatically qualify for a standalone page. Being qualified to provide commentary on a notable person does not justify an article. At most, the commentary used to gather data about Reed supports a citation within the Lou Reed article itself.
    Regarding the Fox source, I recognize that it discusses City Winery within a larger conversation about real estate and urban development, but I question whether that discussion is in-depth enough to establish independent notability. If the venue is merely mentioned as one of many businesses affected by real estate trends rather than as a significant cultural entity in its own right, then this coverage does not meet WP:GNG. The source documents business activity at a given moment in time, but it does not assess any lasting cultural impact of the venue itself. At most, it might justify a citation within an article about urban development in that city at that moment in time, but not for a standalone article about City Winery.
    I disagree that the restaurant nightlife advertisement publication substantiates notability. WP:NORG explicitly distinguishes between general food reviews, advertisements, and in-depth analysis that establishes lasting significance. These are advertisements and not reviews, however, for argument's sake, even if it were an independent review, it primarily discusses food, ambiance, and service. None of those items contribute to establishing historical or cultural significance. For a venue to meet notability standards, sources would need to analyze its unique role in music, performance, or cultural movements, rather than simply describing it as a location where artists perform and people can go to drink or dine. However, these sources are not in-depth analyses; they are advertising copy submitted to create the nightlife guide, going so far as to include a direct promotional quote from the venue’s manager, which indicates a conflict of interest rather than independent evaluation.
    The Weekends in Chicago publication is a curated nightlife guide, composed of PR material and promotional blurbs similar to what would be found in a VisitChicago tourism booklet. It functions not as an independent critical source but as a commercially motivated directory meant to promote local businesses. These are commonly created marketing materials published by newspapers designed to promote commerce in their city. As such, the Weekends publication's purpose is to drive commerce, not to provide critical analysis of historical or cultural impact. Simply being listed among other venues in an entertainment guide is not equivalent to being the subject of sustained, in-depth, independent coverage, as required by WP:GNG.
    Additionally, producing promotional recipe books featuring local businesses is a common marketing strategy that does not, in itself, establish significance. These books are often sold commercially, but their purpose is cross-promotional rather than editorial, typically serving as a low-cost marketing gimmick to generate sales within a specific region. Restaurants contribute free recipes in exchange for advertising, making these books a standard promotional tool rather than an independent, in-depth cultural analysis. The inclusion of City Winery in such a publication does not indicate historical or cultural significance, but rather that it was one of many businesses that opted to participate for mutual promotional benefit. These books function primarily as advertising compilations, not as critical examinations of a venue’s lasting impact. As such, they are insufficient to establish notability under WP:GNG.
    I acknowledge that some of these sources provide useful context about City Winery, but none appear to provide substantial, sustained, or independent coverage that meets Wikipedia’s notability standards for genuine cultural impact. If more robust sources existed that provided deeper, independent analysis of City Winery’s impact beyond food service and real estate, I would be open to reassessing its notability. However, based on the sources presented, deletion remains the appropriate course of action. Qinifer (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We disagree, and I think at this point, it's best to let other editors form their own opinions about those sources. Again, I appreciate that you must have had quite a bit of aggravation over the promotional editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I appreciate that these are not always clear-cut cases, and it’s okay for us to disagree. I genuinely mean it when I say that I appreciate the work and effort you’ve put into this, it’s quality research. We’re both just trying to figure out the best way to apply the guidelines and solve a tricky issue together. I respect both you and the discussion, and I’m glad we could have it. I’ve actually learned a lot from it. Qinifer (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines as outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NORG and lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to demonstrate lasting encyclopedic value. Furthermore, the articles in question (see below) have a long history of promotional editing, undisclosed paid editing, and conflict-of-interest violations, as documented on their Talk pages. The COI concerns are not hypothetical, they have been thoroughly documented for years, including extensive reports on Talk:Michael Dorf (entrepreneur) (which the City Winery Talk page directs all COI discussion to in order to keep it in one place), where multiple editors flagged that Dorf’s verified relatives and employees were creating and/or manipulating this and other Michael Dorf related pages as part of a coordinated PR effort to promote Michael Dorf's business ventures. Past revisions contained material directly copied from the subject’s website, in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING.
To address the nominator’s comments, while the page may have originally been created in good faith, it was subsequently hijacked by third party actors' promotional interests, as extensively documented. Given the pattern of promotional activity across multiple related articles (Michael Dorf, Knitting Factory, and City Winery), this article has been abused by subsequent actors to promote an individual and his business interests rather than as a neutral encyclopedia entry. Retaining this page serves no encyclopedic purpose beyond acting as a business directory entry, which is explicitly against Wikipedia’s purpose. Qinifer (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By way of further explanation, further evidence supporting deletion can be found on the Talk:Michael Dorf (entrepreneur) - Wikipedia page, where long-term WP:COI violations are documented. The documentation demonstrates sustained efforts to use the Michael Dorf, Knitting Factory, and City Winery pages as promotional tools for Michael Dorf’s businesses. Edits were made by accounts closely linked to Dorf, including individuals sharing his last name and identified as his immediate family members, as well as repeated undisclosed paid editing. While some edits were reverted, others were not, and the underlying promotional nature of these articles were never meaningfully corrected. Given Wikipedia’s policies against promotional content (WP:NOTADIRECTORY), its requirement for significant independent coverage (WP:GNG), and the other reasons I stated in my previous response, this page should be deleted. Qinifer (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gracia Dura Bin

[edit]
Gracia Dura Bin (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)

Reason Alexthegod5 (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC) Non notable individual who's only source of significance is that her husband named a city after her in Florida, which is already summarized in his article (Andrew Turnbull (colonist)). Alexthegod5 (talk)[reply]

I don't know why the misspelled name is used for the article title - 18th and early 19th century sources refer to her as (Mrs) Gracia Turnbull or Maria Gracia Turnbull.
I'll try to work out how to add this to other deletion sorting lists (Greece, Florida, South Carolina) in the hope that editors who work in those areas may have access to more sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen Thank you for your assistance - I tried looking up the South Carolina Medical Society and found the Medical Society of South Carolina, which was founded around the same time (1789), although neither that website nor the organization's history page mention either her nor her husband. Maybe that's a good place to start looking for some other sources that mention her? Alexthegod5 (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen Here's something I just found that might be a good place too, if you or someone else is able to get a copy https://www.amazon.com/MEDICAL-SOCIETY-SOUTH-CAROLINA-Hundred/dp/B000GS75JK Alexthegod5 (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Ruzek

[edit]
Josef Ruzek (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)

An associate professor with a long career in psychology, but who doesn't meet WP:NPROF. Their high-impact papers are mid-author contributions to multi-author papers, or reviews. Doesn't seem to make general notability criteria either. Klbrain (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unique homomorphic extension theorem

[edit]
Unique homomorphic extension theorem (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)

Through a Google search, I couldn't find any results directly related to "Unique homomorphic extension theorem", so it's not clear if it's notable (or a rebranding of something notable). Given that this page has been an orphan for many years and in its current state is too technical to be of use for most readers, it seems worth a review. I'm not familiar with the topic, so would like to get the opinion from people more familiar with it 7804j (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 7804j (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but leave cleanup banners intact, especially the one about this being too technical. It's very frustrating. There are hundreds or thousands of research publications in logic and programming language theory talking about homomorphic extensions and their uniqueness, but taking it for granted that their audience knows all about it and not providing legible definitions or original sources for this idea, stretching as far back as 1976 (see "An algebraic approach to data types, program verification, and program synthesis", Henke, MFCS, doi:10.1007/3-540-07854-1_195, page 334 lines 12-13). Our article is merely following suit in opacity and lack of original sources. It needs major cleanup by someone who is not me (because this is not an area I am familiar with), but I think it's notable. [Note: I was canvassed here on my talk page by User:Bearian, but I think for the neutral reason that I often edit mathematical topics rather than out of any expectation of a particular outcome. I certainly didn't go into my examination of the article with any such expectation, and I would have seen this anyway from its listing in the Mathematics deletion discussion list.] —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. This is really beyond my comprehension. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kamana Koji

[edit]
Kamana Koji (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. A sole third party source was added but cannot verify this is SIGCOV. The other sources are databases. I believe he still fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY as well as WP:NATH. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While I would typically close this as no consensus to delete and a redirect discussion can continue editorially, these athletes' discussions are complex. So giving it one more spin here to avoid DRV or Talk Page discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LORAN-C transmitter Salwa

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

No sources on topic other than entries on lists of LORAN transmitters. Should be merged into comprehensive list of the antennas instead of having permanent one-sentence articles for each mast PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a merge target? Or is the proposal to create a new article and merge this into it?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is not currently a merge target. The proposal is to create an article "List of LORAN-C transmitters" and merge this and similar articles into it. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AFD can not be closed as a Merge as argued unless the target article is created. Otherwise, this will likely close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Urban society in China

[edit]
Urban society in China (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 page remains an WP:ESSAY without WP:RS. Urbanization in China already covers the topic. Amigao (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic of New Zealand Party

[edit]
The Republic of New Zealand Party (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 GNG, there is no significant coverage of the group bar the New Zealand Herald article in the article. The rest of the coverage in the article is non-independent/trivial/routine reporting. Nothing I could find with a search for the party's name turned up any SIGCOV. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support --LJ Holden 09:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am okay with a redirect based on discussion to change the criteria on the target page's talk page. RfD always exists to handle the redirect in the future. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I favor the lowest of low bars for WP articles on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections. This is exactly the sort of information that our readers rightfully expect of us. I will add that this is a GNG pass... THIS from the footnotes is compelling. Carrite (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Now we have arguments for Deletion, Redirection and Keeping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of MLS on ESPN personalities

[edit]
List of MLS on ESPN personalities (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)

Subject does not appear to have notability as a list topic under WP:LISTN with a complete lack of any type of reliable, secondary sourcing of the group either here or in a BEFORE. Let'srun (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Presa

[edit]
Dominic Presa (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 credits, likely to fail WP:N/CREATIVE KH-1 (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All credits may be reviewed as noteworthy, with sources directing to IMDB to prove legitimacy DOANPR (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Davis

[edit]
Hayden Davis (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, apart from being a massive WP:BLPCRIME violation, doesn't meet WP:CRIMINAL. A merge is not appropriate per BLPCRIME. This guy was not high profile before the ongoing scandal. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Involve (think tank)

[edit]
Involve (think tank) (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 is not notable per WP:NORG. I have done a thorough WP:BEFORE to the best of my ability. Andrew Cave does not make the charity notable (WP:INHERITORG).

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
The Involve Foundation
 No Self-published, it is primary source. ~ I would think so. Yes Involve wrote about Involve. ✘ No
Companies House, UK
 ~ Technically, but are just routine listings. Yes Government agency. Verified. Yes Only about Involve. ~ Partial
Friedrich-Elbert-Siftung
 Yes Written by independent authors. No affiliation. Yes Academic paper. No Is only mentioned as a citation. However the concept is the same. ✘ 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}}.

Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hershii LiqCour-Jeté

[edit]
Hershii LiqCour-Jeté (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 person other than being a contestant on a show Alexthegod5 (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This person competed on a little known drag show for one season to be the "drag queen". Not notable at all. DotesConks (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DotesConks, I'm editing your reply to say "delete". ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanahary I'm not sure why I said oppose there, but thank you for correcting my mistake DotesConks (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have found some sources covering this person. Yahoo Pride (not sure if that's reliable), Gay Times (not sure of this one either, seems like a lot of "Madonna Stuns in New Selfie" crap), and an interview with Billboard.
I'll also note that "not notable apart from being a contestant on a show" and "the show they competed on is little-known" (which is really not true, it's a famous show) are not policy-based arguments; deletion arguments should derive from the notability guidelines. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This coverage does not seem significant enough to me for this person to meet the GNG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanahary Thank you for the feedback! So just in the future, notability guidelines generally include coverage even if it's (for example) someone who starred in one show or movie? Let me know if I should ask this on your talk page too Alexthegod5 (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone whose entire career (and notability) comes from a TV show appearance can still be notable and meet GNG. It's just unlikely that they would. But take Dorinda Medley for example: she was not a public figure before being cast on the Real Housewives of New York, and now she is an independently notable person. In my opinion, coverage of a person that is about nothing but their time on a reality show (like how Survivor contestants often get a bunch of Entertainment Weekly articles about them and interviews after they're voted off) does not demonstrate notability, but I don't know what the community's consensus on that sort of thing is. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zombieboy

[edit]
Zombieboy (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:NSONG, which specifies that coverage of a song in the context of album reviews is insufficient to demonstrate notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging @RangersRus, who accepted this at AFC. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The song made it to the top charts on UK billboard and on Billboard Hot 100 chart. So it meets the criteria Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. and also has coverage by The Guardian and by Billboard, and Capitalfm, UK's No.1 Hit Music Station. RangersRus (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Charting is not a criterion for notability. That's listed under the following: Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful. The Guardian source is an album review, which the guideline explicitly states does not contribute to notability for a song. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Capitalfm and Billboard have coverage focusing on the song alone. RangersRus (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not enough coverage to establish notability. The Billboard is totally trivial, just "Lady Gaga posts a TikTok" and is not about the song. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mayhem (Lady Gaga album) this doesn't meet WP:NSONGS when the only credible sources outside of album reviews or artist commentary just give brief mentions that are less than a cumulative paragraph. Definitely not sufficient for a separate article, so the draft shouldn't have been accepted at AFC. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my comment above. RangersRus (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For reference:
    Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple,[2] non-trivial[3] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries or reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.[4] Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.
    Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.
    A standalone article about a song should satisfy the above criteria. Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful.
    1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)
    2. Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Latin Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
    3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.
     ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other non-substantive detail treatment.
  2. ^ The number of reliable sources necessary to establish notability is different for songs from different eras. Reliable sources available (especially online) increases as one approaches the present day.
  3. ^ "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. Be careful to check that the musician, record label, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular song/single are in no way affiliated with any third party source.
  4. ^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the song/single. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its artist, record label, vendor or agent) have actually considered the song/single notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
  • You appear to believe "may be notable" is synonymous with "probably notable". That is a common mistake among Wikipedians and is why the "not that it is notable" part gets included (even when often overlooked). Either way, whenever there is little to no coverage from sources that aren't album reviews or artist commentary, it becomes moot whether a song enters any charts. We thus shouldn't assume that charting can compensate for minimal depth in sources that discuss the song at all. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Probably TOOSOON for the song. The Billboard article about the dance trend is probably the best source. Rest are rather trivial coverage. The song was only released this month, probably needs time before the music-consuming public decides if it's the "killer hit of the summer" or some such thing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That chart clause is in the context of things about a song that are positive indicators that a search for coverage would make a case for notability. The coverage is still what establishes notability. Charting does not presume notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today&oldid=1238673950"