Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

31 January 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 30	February 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Air Battle of Valjevo

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

Seems to be very poorley soruces, with the only decent sources not really covering this. Also riddeld with peacock wording. Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Malakal Airport collision

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Africa. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OGA Golf Course

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

This golf course has gotten a few brief mentions in some news articles, but none of them have gone into enough depth to justify its notability. Fails GNG. Badbluebus (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Sports, Golf, United States of America, and Oregon. Badbluebus (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Engineered constructs says:
Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.

Sources
1. Wallach, Jeff (2004). Best Places to Golf Northwest: British Columbia to Northern Utah, the Western Rockies to the Pacific. Seattle: Sasquatch Books. pp. 31–32. ISBN 978-1-57061-395-1. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "The Oregon Golf Association (OGA) Members Course at Tukwila may have one of the longest names around, but it's also long on great golf. Bill Robinson stitched together this tapestry of holes in Woodburn, forty minutes south of Portland. The fabric of Bentgrass stretches 6,650 from the longest of four sets of tees and boasts a couple of reachable (and especially good) par 5s, a huge double green at nine and eighteen, and some of the finest putting surfaces in the region. Water, wicked bunkers, and pesky woods are also on the menu of this stupendous walking course. The holes here are pure and clever. The OGA course opens with an inviting slight dog right followed by the opposite dog, but this one has more bite—in the form of a hazelnut orchard right, a pond left, and a tree and bunkers that could come into play. Number four is a complex 516 yards: Blind tee shots run down toward a ravine. The second shot climbs back uphill between bunkers and forest and over the chasm to a plateau green. A second par 5 follows. The back side contains the best par 3 on the course, a volatile 172 yards that slope toward water. ..."
2. Robinson, Bob (1996-05-01). "New OGA Members Course draws rave reviews". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The opening of the course's second nine holes in late April marked a milestone—the accomplishment of the OGA's 20-year dream. ... The OGA isn't finished. A clubhouse is in the long-range planning stages to replace the current temporary building. But the major goal—the public golf course—finally is a reality. ... In effect, the OGA Members Course is owned by the nearly 50,000 members of the OGA from 154 member clubs in Oregon and Southwest Washington. The members paid the dues that made the project possible. The idea began in the mid-1970s, when the OGA started having difficulty securing courses for its tournaments. ... In 1976, the OGA began charging each member $1 in annual dues to go into a course acquisition and usage fund. Later, the charge was raised to $2 per member and, finally, $5 when a five-year capital assessment went into effect. Still, as late as 1993, the project was no sure thing. The OGA had $1.2 million in its fund at the time."
3. Petshow, Joe (1994-07-31). "OGA to open its course. The first nine holes open for public play on Tuesday". Statesman Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The Oregon Golf Association's new Members' Course faces a tough task in the days ahead. Keeping 50.000 shareholders happy. ... Nine holes of the course will open to the public on Tuesday. A driving range and putting green opened earlier this year. A second nine holes is scheduled to be completed in 1996. The clubhouse will be the site of the OGA's offices and also will house a golf museum. ... The course is located at Tukwila, a new housing development in north Woodburn. The Tukwila partners donated 170 acres. ... The Members' Course was designed by Bill Robinson, who recently renovated Willamette Valley Country Club in Canby and Bend Country Club. The course flows through a filbert orchard and has six lakes, three wetlands and 31 sand bunkers. ... Another feature is an 18,000-square-foot green, which will be used for the ninth and the 18th holes after the second nine is built. Until then, it will serve as the ninth green. The course also has a 12,000-square- foot putting green, and a driving range with an 80-yard wide tee area, three flag placements and seven targets."
4. Wallach, Jeff (2013-09-25). "The Off-Trail Oregon Golf Trip". Links. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17.
  This is the same author as Wallach 2004. The article notes: "As you head inland over the Coast Range to the lush Willamette Valley, try your best to turn a cold shoulder to Pumpkin Ridge Golf Club and instead set your sights on the OGA Golf Course. Unlike its name, the course is anything but unwieldy. Located half an hour south of Portland, this Bill Robinson layout boasts a couple of reachable par 5s, a huge double green at Nos. 9 and 18, and some of the finest putting surfaces in the region. The layout opens with two dogleg—No. 1 bends slightly right while No. 2 turns left. The second has more bite, with a hazelnut orchard right, a pond left, and a tree and bunkers that could come into play as one approaches the green. The 4th hole is a complex 516 yards, beginning with a blind tee shot that runs toward a ravine. The second shot climbs back uphill between bunkers and through forest, over a chasm to a plateau green."
5. Petshow, Joe (1993-09-01). "Officials plan for OGA course". Statesman Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Golf nuts should enjoy the future home of the Oregon Golf Association. The OGA's planned 18-hole public course and an Oregon Golf Hall of Fame is situated north of Woodburn on farmland that includes a filbert orchard. The association on Tuesday officially unveiled the plans for the course, under construction east of Boones Ferry Road and north of Highway 214. The scheduled opening for the first nine holes is May 1994. ... The first phase of construction includes nine golf holes, a driving range, maintenance facility and temporary clubhouse. The cost for the first phase is approximately $1.7 million. ... The course, which includes a wetlands area and views of Mount Hood, will be within the Tukwila real estate development. The 170 acres of land for the golf course was donated to the OGA."
6. Less significant coverage:
  1. Golf Digest (2006). Carney, Bob (ed.). OGA Golf Course (7 ed.). New York: Fodor's. p. 534. ISBN 978-1-4000-1629-7. ISSN 1534-1356. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Internet Archive.
    The article notes: "★★★★1⁄2 OGA GOLF COURSE. PU-2850 Hazelnut Dr., Woodburn, 97071, 503-981-6105. Web: ogagolfcourse.com. Facility Holes: 18. Opened: 1996. Architect: William Robinson. Yards: 6,650/5,498. Par: 72/72. Course Rating: 71.7/71.8. Slope: 131/128. Green Fee: $26/$48. Cart Fee: $25 per cart. Cards: MasterCard, Visa, Discover. Discounts: Weekdays, twilight, seniors, juniors. Walking: Unrestricted walking. Walkability: 2. Season: Year-round. High: Apr.-Nov. Tee Times: Call 5 days in advance. Notes: Range (grass, mat). Comments: This "must-play course" has the "best condition and layout in the state." It has "soft lines, big greens and tough pins." The "front nine, which winds through hazelnut trees our readers tell us, is more interesting and challenging than the "boring" back."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow OGA Golf Course to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the sources presented by Cunard?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Publicola (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation, best addressed with hatnote. Gjs238 (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Poplicola (cognomen). Not even sure the hatnote is necessary to be honest, but definitely don't think there's any need for a disambiguation page for a local news blog that isn't notable enough to have its own article. MCE89 (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Poplicola (cognomen) as an alternate spelling, e.g. Publius Valerius Poplicola, Quintus Pedius Poplicola. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Poplicola (cognomen) per Clarityfiend. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is already redirect Publicola, is not Publicola (disambiguation) an unnecessary disambiguation? Gjs238 (talk)

True. It was titled Poplicola (disambiguation) (which influenced my original !lvote), before I took a closer look and moved it. Deletion is also acceptable, since I also added a hatnote to Publius Valerius Poplicola. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after including the website in the hatnote at the main Publicola article, as I've just done. PamD 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Create disambig at Publicola, then Redirect Publicola (disambiguation) to Publicola. Gjs238 (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic redirect points to an article with a hatnote to the only other use. Poplicola (cognomen) is not a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same question as previous relister.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catskill Mountain 3500 Club

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

Obscure club without adequate WP:ORGDEPTH coverage to meet WP:NORG. Graywalls (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Sports, and New York. Graywalls (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Project JEDI

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

PROD removed but not secondary sources forth coming. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 07:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Universe of Kingdom Hearts

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

The article is almost entirely full of WP:Gamecruft. The sources are mostly primary, while secondary reviews are from the game reviews. I think it would be the best if this article will be merged to the franchise rather than splitting it off. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 07:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 07:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not opposed to "universe of" articles in general, but this one clearly and completely fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE by not having significant coverage specifically about the world itself. I would just be aware that "Gamecruft" is considered disparaging rather than neutral, so people may take your nomination as WP:IDONTLIKEIT when you don't mean it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry G. Gorin

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

It looks like he was involved in a bunch of notable court cases as a deputy DA but none of the refs are about him as an individual, it's all about the cases. The only exceptions are personal bios and this interview about his practice. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, Russia, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, just an attack page. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
What is your definition of an "attack page" may I ask? All the sources are independent and reliable and the content doesn't seem promotional.--50.39.138.50 (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article demonstrates Dmitry G. Gorin's notability through his extensive legal career, including high-profile cases, academic roles at UCLA and Pepperdine University, and public impact in the legal field. His involvement in cases with significant media coverage and his contributions as an educator meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and warrant retention of the article. Thecoolfactfinder (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC) — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Just being involved in high profile cases and having positions at universities is not enough to make him automatically notable. He has to also meet either WP:GNG or WP:NPROF, and I don't really see anything in the article that demonstrates that. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At first glance, I was inclined to agree with the nominator. However, after looking more closely, it’s clear this isn’t just any average lawyer we’re talking about - on the opposite. I also disagree with calling it “just another promo page” because every case is backed by independent sources, and the article itself is relatively well-written compared to similar lawyer pages on Wikipedia. Anyways, here is a breakdown of what I found:
- 1) Senior Deputy District Attorney Experience and Lecturer at UCLA - the individual served as a Senior Deputy District Attorney in Los Angeles County for many years—one of the largest districts in the United States. This role indicates they managed high-profile public cases over an extended period. He has also been a lecturer at UCLA, teaching two law courses since 2003 (as noted on the UCLA website).

2) Notable Cases - Lawyers can establish notability through the cases they handle. The “Notable cases” section of Gorin includes several high-profile matters, a few of them with their own Wikipedia pages. This list is already significant and it is not even complete.

For instance, the attorney recently defended a Los Angeles Deputy Mayor, as reported here but doesn't appear on his Wikipedia page:

https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/los-angeles-deputy-mayor-brian-williams-fbi-search-bomb-threat-against-city-hall/

Moreover, there’s substantial, ongoing coverage of this lawyer’s activities across the internet: https://www.google.com/search?num=10&client=opera&hs=yp4&sca_esv=2e9d584eca4b7171&sxsrf=ADLYWIJkODkpzSutiQ9Fstquqdk8FeYYWQ:1737252893598&q=Dmitry+Gorin+lawyer&tbm=nws&source=lnms&fbs=AEQNm0Aa4sjWe7Rqy32pFwRj0UkWd8nbOJfsBGGB5IQQO6L3JzWreY9LW7LdGrLDAFqYDH2Z7s7jqgHIAW8PVnwe_sR_e-RCOLF8PNV6cgrvTe9W1QlY3sOMCnrD6DpPmucUF3Q4DWCnbUQ16OCFEw0bA3f-zorCYPCwItkuWVcknbOv4-nN1bzai1VYTk7zJThGO9aVJKR1TUIesAdeoQ7gAi3QfFsX3Q&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwicou6s24CLAxUcJzQIHRecNVsQ0pQJegQIDhAB&biw=1226&bih=552&dpr=1.5

The best sources on his page are from the Daily Journal and UCLA (both appear to be independent with in-depth coverage), but I doubt the editor who created the page has fully captured the breadth of available information or conducted thorough research.

3) Professional Directories - Several nationwide lawyer directories — independent to the best of my industry knowledge — rank him among the top attorneys in the country:

https://www.bestlawyers.com/lawyers/dmitry-gorin/157188/ https://profiles.superlawyers.com/california/los-angeles/lawyer/dmitry-gorin/29d97483-1d6e-4a02-b50d-9a4a91ac68e1.html

My point is that this individual is certainly not a “run-of-the-mill” lawyer; they have played a significant public role, handled numerous notable cases, and also teach at a prominent university (UCLA). 50.39.138.50 (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He shows up in a lot of search results and was involved in notable court cases, but neither of those things make him individually notable. Being senior deputy DA is also not a position that makes a person automatically notable. You need to find RSes that are about him and don't just briefly mention or quote him. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BuySomeApples, UCLA source and the Daily Journal article both provide in-depth, independent, and reliable coverage, which meets the basic notability requirement of two strong sources. Considering his multiple notable cases (some of them with their own Wikipedia pages) and his public service as a District Attorney for Los Angeles County, I view this attorney as clearly notable.50.39.138.50 (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the UCLA source is not independent as he has worked there. JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t agree. UCLA is one of the most respected academic institutions in the United States, with stringent standards for verification and accountability. Nothing on that page appeared promotional or unsubstantiated by other sources. I stand by my opinion unless you can show evidence that UCLA has published promotional material about its lecturers and provide a few examples.--50.39.138.50 (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are conflating reliability with independence. There is well-established consensus that content from an employer about its employees is never independent. This is stated in WP:N: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it., NPROF: non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, and NBIO: Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not contribute toward notability, nor do web pages about an organization's own staff or members. There is no scenario where an employer doesn't count as being "affiliated" with an employee. JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about this policy on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules
WP:BUREAUCRACY
WP:5P5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law

Wikipedia has never strictly adhered to rigid rules without exceptions. Common sense often takes precedence over rigid rule-following, and each situation should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Specifically, we need in-depth coverage and verifiability to ensure that facts are presented neutrally and can be confirmed by reliable sources. This is exactly the case for UCLA's page. No one disputes that UCLA is a respected institution, and I have not encountered any information published by UCLA about their lecturers that cannot be verified. Regarding Mr. Gorin, I thoroughly checked his UCLA profile, and all the information—his education, role as an Attorney, and other basic biographical facts—can be verified through multiple sources.

I have shared my opinion on this matter and have no interest in further discussing it.--50.39.138.50 (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion, the article meets WP:GNG. What coverage of a lawyer's activities do we need? To the sources already cited in the article, I can add this one: Gorin Selected to the 2021 Top 100 Super Lawyers in Southern California [1]. Moreover, in media outlets such as the NY Times [2], CBS [https//www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/los-angeles-deputy-mayor-brian-williams-fbi-search-bomb-threat-against-city-hall/], and TMZ [3], he provides commentary on high-profile cases he handled at the time. In articles from The Guardian [4] and the Daily Journal [5], he comments on other significant cases. It’s clear that articles about cases he worked on won’t necessarily detail his personal life. The notable cases are what defines the lawyer. Tau Corvi (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get that most lawyers who work on high profile cases won't have a lot of articles written about them, the articles will usually focus on the cases. What that means is that most of those lawyers aren't notable, it doesn't mean that the standards for lawyers are lower than other figures. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of this person's roles contribute whatsoever to notability. Lawyers can only achieve notability through either significant coverage of them in independent secondary RS, or through academic impact as established by C1. Quotations from the subject never count toward GNG, and that is the entirety of the coverage linked above with the exception of the "best lawyers" press release, which obviously fails independence. JoelleJay (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets basic criteria for notability as per WP:GNG – we have two in-depth sources here, this, and this, with the former providing sufficient amount of information on the biography. In addition, with multiple sources covering the cases led by Gorin, it is safe to assume that the subject is notable. Baruzza (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The UCLA source is obviously not independent. The Daily Journal one looks good if it's truly independent (it reads like a paid-for advertorial, and the site offers ways to "submit your news"), but even so we need multiple sources of IRS SIGCOV to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the reviewed sources, the page meets general notability criteria. Subject's decades-long public role as a District Attorney in Los Angeles County and the notable cases he has overseen confirm his significance. Silvymaro (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Silvymaro, which reviewed sources are independent, secondary, and SIGCOV? JoelleJay (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katherina Roshana

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

Fails WP:BLP1E. Only known for winning a beauty pageant.4meter4 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, South America, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the nom that this subject does not appear to have the lasting notability and is a WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given this article's inclusion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexi Wilson, Soft Deletion is not possible for this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: There's an essay WP:NBEAUTY which states that winners of national-level pageants which select participants for the Big Four pageants are generally presumed to be notable. There is a caveat on the page that it's an essay and not a policy or guideline. I think this should be clarified as if this is not a well-established guideline by consensus, I'd vote to delete this article because while there is coverage of the subject winning the pageant, it is a one event situation as noted by the previous two editors. If notability is conferred by winning a national level beauty pageant that qualifies the subject for one of the Big Four international beauty pageants, then I'd vote to keep. Nnev66 (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Identiv

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

The sources in the articles are mostly routine coverage on industry websites or the company's profile pages on other sites. I couldn't find much besides press releases and passing mentions on a WP:BEFORE. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to mention here that, as discussed on Talk:Identiv#Issues identified during AFC, there are sources from most of the largest German media houses that contribute to notability, and which are currently not included in the article. /Urbourbo (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Still on the fence about this (note the talk page which includes more discussion about notability than just the additional German references). There is this which is a good source but the only other one I find that could meet WP:ORGCRIT (possibly) is this from Fast Company. The potential issue with that reference is the article was generated for an award that the company paid to be a part of. Not sure how independent it would be since Fast Company has an interest in promoting them based on the award being given from Fast Company. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maoist Communist Party (Spain)

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

Minor political organisation with no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. I found a few mentions of a "Maoist Communist Party" in Spain in books and journal articles, but they were describing organisations of the 1970s, not the topic of this article, an organisation founded in 2019. Yue🌙 04:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Yue🌙 04:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any WP:RS discussing them. But if someone finds some, I am happy to change my vote. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect with/to International Communist League (Maoist). It was covered by the Argentinian site Infobae in 2022 [6], listed here as a communist party in Spain. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage isn't in-depth though. Doesn't make sense to me to convert articles of organisations into redirects to international organisations they are a part of (and thus setting a precedent to create similar redirects). There is no significant coverage of the topic in the international's Wikipedia article and the scope wouldn't necessarily be appropriate either, as this party isn't merely a national branch of the international. I'm not sure International Communist League (Maoist) meets notability guidelines either. Yue🌙 19:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Half the Infobae article is devoted to the MCP. Precedent has nothing to do with this; there are numerous political party redirects to lists of political parties. The point of a retaining a redirect in this case is because the subject is not an implausible search term however there is not enough material at this point on the subject to justify a stand alone page. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Swanepoel

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

Not notable. Promo for a business exec. PzizzleD (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Kenya, South Africa, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AUTHOR. There seems to be a misconception that getting a book on the New York Times Bestseller List is a free pass for a Wikipedia article. While there was a day, 15 or 18 years ago, when many people passed AfD on that basis, we have never been a free web host nor nor LinkedIn. I see lot of poor sourcing here. I'm not against Draftifying this, but I'm leaning delete . Bearian (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Khalaf

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

Declined prod that was redirected. Another editor and myself opposed redirect here Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_9#Nancy_Khalaf LibStar (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Olympics. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar you restored the article and took it to afd before the rfd closed, and did so as the rfd's nom. try to not do that. i know from experience that closing rfds as nom for any reason besides withdrawing is a pretty bad idea lol

in the meantime, delete as a stub with no reliable sources and more external links than article text consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 18:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lebanon at the 1988 Summer Olympics: I'm not sure I understand the opposition to this common ATD target for non-notable Olympians. JTtheOG (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to see if there is more support for a Redirect to Lebanon at the 1988 Summer Olympics.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Discworld Convention

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

WP:BEFORE only showed unreliable sources such as blogs and fan sites, or other passing mentions. This does not have reliable secondary sources to achieve WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Events, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship disclaimer: In the past I was the webmaster for the International Discworld Convention. The website is hosted on my servers so I still have an indirect connection to them.

Primary sources for the convention are:

https://2018.dwcon.org/
https://2020.dwcon.org/ redirects to - https://2022.dwcon.org/ because the convention had to be skipped that year because of COVID
https://2022.dwcon.org/
https://2024.dwcon.org/

Of course these aren't independent sources, so I understand they don't count :)

It's quite an important convention for fans of the Discworld series of books and other things related to Terry Pratchett. Terry used to attend the conventions until because of his illness the travel became too much for him. And of course the conventions are organised in agreement with the Pratchett estate.

What kind of secondary sources would be appropriate for an event like this? Sjmsteffann (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would a story published in The Guardian like this one from Ian Stewart (mathematician) or this letter from Elizabeth Alway be helpful? Or a Reddit discussion? Are things like Fancyclopedia or Fanlore useful?

Willing to help make the article better, but careful because I used to be involved and I don't want to mess up or break rules :) Sjmsteffann (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjmsteffann: WP:Self-published sources are usually not used in Wikipedia, because there is no supervising authority which ensures reliability. So Reddit and wikis (which I think Fancyclopedia and Fanlore are) are not helpful. The Guardian on the other hand is an accepted reliable source according to WP:Perennial sources. There is some qualification there for opinion pieces. So I assume these still contribute to notability, as a reliable source has decided to spend space on the topic, and such pieces just have to be used in accordance with WP:RSOPINION, but additional input would be welcome. Daranios (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't really count Ian Stewart as an independent source for Discworld, as he's one of the coauthors of the Science of Discworld subseries (with Terry Pratchett and Jack Cohen). Adam Sampson (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to Discworld, or possibly keep~~, depending on the discussion of sources above. The Hollywood Reporter article only briefly mentions the convention, but can have the same use in the Discworld article than it has in the web article: the convention verifies the importance of the fandom for this fictional universe. More importantly, Fans and Fandom, p. 186-187, which as far as I can tell is a personal overview over such things by a reporter and editor in just that field, has a page on the convention. Daranios (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Discworld convention is still a premier event in the UK (which attracts attendants from across the Anglosphere), even though Terry passed away ten years ago. It is one...I think of five...current Discworld conventions (not including the North American one, which may or may not return). Terry Pratchett was once the best selling author in the UK (and routinely hit number one spot in the main North American charts) for a time. TP's works routinely pops up in The Best Lists. The legacy of the works is being continued with the production company Narrativia, which is currently adapting Terry's works to screen and telly, Good Omens being a recent large scale production, of this sort, and with books being released with the blessing of Narrativia. The Convention actually grew in the years after Terry’s passing and currently shows no sign of diminishing, it's the opposite, as such it is one of the largest, if not the largest (I don't know for sure) UK conventions of it's type based on a sole author's works.Halbared (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Halbared That would be sufficient to keep the article - if you could find RS saying so... (about the convention, because much of your post is about TP, and nobody is suggesting we delete his biography...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG as written. It is plausible this could be rescued, but right now I don't see the sources in my BEFORE. Redirect is problematic; this is mentioned in Discworld and Terry Pratchett, but the mentions are trivial. All that said, I think Discworld fandom might warrant an article, and this could be mentioned there, but sadly, this does not exist. And what we have here is, currently, an entry on a likely non-notable fan organization that did not attract any serious, independent attention. Sorry, folks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and expand to Discworld fandom, which can become a merge target for other NN topics. Even if GNG was met, it'd have to be a Gen Con or Origins level convention to escape NOPAGE considerations. Individual conventions are great... but they're better covered in fandom-appropriate articles. Jclemens (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gen con means a general convention? What is 'origins' level con?Halbared (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gen Con and Origins Game Fair. Sorry, not trying to be cryptic, those are long running, annual, named national/international-scope conventions. Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ta. I can see they're big! 20k. The Discworld con is restricted to 1k so it doesn't change into a shopping centre type thing like Comic Con. I was looking at the List of fan conventions by date of founding, a lot of which don' exist any-more and have the same amount of information as this page, such as Gallifrey One (which is active), I see Dr Who has a fandom page, this may be a workable solution.Halbared (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and expand to Discworld fandom, per Jclemens, and add in the content from Draft:The North American Discworld Convention. Brilliant solution, problem solved. BD2412 T 01:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support this solution, and I think the above-mentioned Fans and Fandom may be helpful in expanding on the topic; the Hollywood Reporter article and Discworld and the Disciplines, p. 216, while both very brief, verify that fandom has been going strong as of 2015 and 2012, respectively, and could be used in an introductory sentence on the fandom more globally. Daranios (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support the Rename and expand to Discworld fandom as per the great working solution above.Halbared (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We can't close an AFD as a rename. The article's title is an editing decision that has to be discussed by editors if this article is Kept. Should we interpret Rename "votes" as "Keep" votes?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in order to rename and expand scope to Discworld fandom afterwards, as discussed above, which I think solves the problems and is a good way to present this. Daranios (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Zahir (Konar Education Minister)

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

Nominated for PROD, but PROD reverted with comment "As a cabinet-level official of a province, he is automatically notable, even without multiple in-depth references". The one reference is a passing mention. Article has been substandard since 2009. Blackballnz (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Afghanistan. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 07:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Holt

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

Amateur-level and youth football coach. Doesn't appear to meet the WP:GNG. References are either passing mentions or primary sources. Searching revealed more of the same. C 679 05:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and New Zealand. C 679 05:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 05:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - same reasons as nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moinuddin Hadi Naqshband

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

The article does not meet the general notability guideline due to the fact that the article subject lacks coverage in reliable, independent sources. The article's content is not verified by reliable, independent sources, and instead the article relies upon primary sources of dubious authenticity that seem to be produced by the article subject’s own organization. Even if the sources were authentic, we have no way of accessing them, and therefore there is no way of knowing whether or not they even verify what is contained in the article. HyperShark244 (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Jammu and Kashmir. HyperShark244 (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A Historical figure of cultural significance. And there are multiple reliable sources mentioned as citations. Maybe this article needs to be improved. But before nominating for deletion, you should always consider Wp:BEFORE. Zuck28 (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cultural significance can be mirrored in the high amount of prilgrims seeking blessings by the figure as a saint until today (WP:RECENTISM) (WP:NOTE) (WP:GNG). Sources are independant and confirm the notability in a verifiable and traceable manner (WP:RS) (WP:V). Hence this topic has no self-promotion inherent and meets encyclopedic standards (WP:NOT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayonnaise.sandiwch.123 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC) sock Girth Summit _(blether) 12:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: while the article has undergone an expansion and more citations have been added to it, multiple references within the article do not look reliable. For example, Tazkare Khwanadane Hazrat Eshan published by a company that is part of the organization which the article subject is a member of- the Naqshbandi order or Naqshbandiyya, and E. J. W. Gibb Memorial by Nicholson, Reynold. The other sources need to be evaluated- they need to be reliable, independent and non-primary sources. Then, the article should be cleaned up, and any content attributed to unreliable or otherwise inappropriate sources should be removed. Then, what remains should be considered and the discussion on whether or not the article should be kept can continue. HyperShark244 (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Request: cleanup the article Moinuddin Hadi Naqshband and remove all content that is not verified through reliable, independent and non-primary sources from the article. Pinging @Onel5969: @HistoryofIran: @UrielAcosta: HyperShark244 (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Channel Islands Universities Consortium

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

Per WP:Verifiability, all content on Wikpedia needs to verifiable. The only source that this article uses is no longer accessible. I cannot find any source about this Consortium's existence that doesn't just copy the Wikipedia article. Aŭstriano (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Aŭstriano (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nat Christian: Very limited is there. can redirect Monhiroe (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! What does this guy have to with the Channel Islands? I assume you posted in the wrong thread. Aŭstriano (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Brad Matetsky

AfDs for this article:

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

I know this subject has survived a previous AfD, but the last one was six years ago and I think the project has leaned a bit more deletionist over time in regards to BLPs. This is something I've run into a few times myself in a Wikipedia-related context (I nominated myself for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Clover and I have written an article about a different Wikipedian since then that I actually think meets our current notability requirements). I think Matetsky's biography is a lot like mine... in that we're not really notable. I took a look at the cited references and the closest any of them gets to WP:GNG is the Princeton one here. My short-lived biography also only had one SIGCOV reference at the time. Everything else is a passing mention. I did my own before and did not find any other sources with more significant coverage (they were just more passing mentions). Deletion might not be the only answer here, a partial merge to the article about ArbCom might make sense, with the subject's name as a redirect. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Internet. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well, if the nom is about making comparisons to other articles (which I don't "think" we normally do) I've seen far fewer references in other articles that have been kept... - jc37 10:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Smith

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

Fails WP:BLP1E. Not clear that the incident itself has longterm significance.4meter4 (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Katrina Leung, for now. Honestly, we should probably cover them all in one scandal article, but he is notable for being her handler and for the fallout. The event is very notable [7] [8] [9] PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PARAKANYAA I think that is a good idea on all points. Just a note, this page will need to be turned into a disambiguation page and not just a redirect because of the Murder of James J. Smith article. We will need to have a page pointing to Katrina Leung and Murder of James J. Smith if we go with this WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giving Back Magazine

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

This promotional article for a local lifestyle magazine is a WP:REFBOMB that despite 31 citations has not a single source that qualifies for WP:GNG. Consider:

WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the magazine in coverage, mostly non-independent, or official bios of its founders: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]
Brief mentions of the magazine's coverage of organizations featured in it in blog posts by those own organizations (self-referential and not secondary) [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]
WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs such as the magazine's trademark, gov docs and its own webpages: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]
WP:USERGENERATED business directories: [34], [35], [36], [37]
Pure advertising for Giving Back magazine: [38]

A BEFORE search turns up nothing else. A note on page history: I draftified an earlier version of this page to give the creator time to make improvements, but the page creator requested deletion of the draft and posted a mostly identical version to mainspace again. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Mexico, and California. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The first issue was published in 2007, so it’s a relatively old publication. The magazine has covered major regional events, for example, the coverage of Prince Albert II’s visit. It also documents local events in the San Diego-Tijuana area, including philanthropy and community events. There is some coverage in reliable sources as well, and I believe Fox News is good enough to show notability. The previous version had approximately 20 citations. This one has more than 30. Tnifty (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of red herrings here. The age of the publication is of no relevance to its notability. The events the publication has covered are of no relevance to its notability. The Fox source you refer to (not Fox News but San Diego's local Fox affiliate) has a single sentence that says: Giving Back Magazine partners with several organizations in San Diego and Tijuana and showcases the people and companies that are doing good in the communities. (This is not WP:SIGCOV that qualifies toward notability.) The number of citations has no bearing on notability (and indeed, a large number may undermine the case for it; see WP:REFBOMB). Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jahangirnagar University Swimming pool

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

Fails every notability guideline meant for man made features (Wikipedia:Notability_(geographic_features)#Artificial_features), this is just a random swimming pool in a random university, there is nothing special or significant about it. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Sports, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete. no sources found + yeah that is completely random brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 02:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Brachy0008 No source found! What are those three ref given at the end of article. "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable,". This pool is one of oldest abandoned pool or early made artificial geographical feature. Local sources mentioned already. Though it is a stub, but notable. ~ Φαϊσάλ (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That statement only applies to current or former human settlements, not to a swimming pool! - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is not a random swimming pool. Swimming pools in Bangladeshi universities are rare and this is the only swimming pool of JNU. JNU is not some random university, it is the only full-residential university of Bangladesh, it is also one of the public universities. For its inactivity, students from the university had to go ponds for bath and many of them actually died while bathing because the ponds were deep and not safe. It was also named "dead pool" because of it was closed for people. I believe it has social importance according to the notability criteria. I guess Brachy0008 said they didn’t find source because they searched online in English. But you will find several sources in Bengali. The important sources are:

Mehedi Abedin 02:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The pool didn't even last a full decade and is very run of the mill; there's probably a whole lot more about the shoddy construction job out there than about anybody actually swimming in this failed body of water. Nate • (chatter) 00:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per MrSchimpf and MILL. I understand how upset students and their families would be to send them to Bangladesh's major public university where they can't even bathe in a pool. However, that's not our purpose. Other than perhaps the maintenance folks, nobody has ever lived there. Bearian (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RedirectJahangirnagar University as an alternate to deletion and merge whatever content can be salvaged. Interesting historical footnote.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jahangirnagar University. I disagree it is just a random swimming pool in a random university rationale, but I do agree that it does not have enough notability for a standalone article. The available content can be merge into university page. - The9Man ^Talk 17:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Worldbruce
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
সুইমিংপুল পরিত্যক্ত, পুকুরে গিয়ে প্রাণহানি [Abandoned swimming pool, death in pond]. NTV (in Bengali). 4 June 2016.			✔ Yes
"JU swimming pool remains abandoned for 20 years". The New Nation. 25 August 2016. Archived from the original on 2023-11-10.			✔ Yes
>জাবির জিমনেসিয়াম ও সুইমিংপুলের বেহাল দশা [JU's gymnasium and swimming pool in poor condition]. Daily Inqilab (in Bengali). 1 October 2016.		About half the article is about the swimming pool	✔ Yes
২৫ বছর ধরে অচল জাবির সুইমিং পুল [JU swimming pool idle for 25 years]. The Daily Ittefaq (in Bengali). 20 January 2020.			✔ Yes
Ujjal, Arifuzzaman (6 November 2021). জাবিতে জিমনেসিয়াম ও সুইমিংপুলের বেহাল দশা [JU gymnasium and swimming pool in poor condition]. The Daily Ittefaq (in Bengali).		About 30% of the article is about the swimming pool	✔ Yes
Mamur, Abdullah (25 February 2024). জাহাঙ্গীরনগরের ‘ডেডপুল’ যেভাবে প্রাণ ফিরে পেল [How Jahangirnagar's 'Deadpool' came back to life]. Prothom Alo (in Bengali).	A primary source, first person account of beautification of the site		✘ No
Hossain, Tarek (4 March 2024). রংতুলির আঁচড়ে সুইমিংপুল [Swimming pool with colorful tiles]. Samakal (in Bengali).			✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Keep There is significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent, national media, over a period of many years. A source analysis shows that the facility meets WP:GNG. Nate is correct that more has been written about the failure of the pool than about anybody actually swimming in it. It is immaterial why independent sources wrote about a topic, the fact that they have written about it is what makes it notable, not whether it fulfilled its intended purpose. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The place now turned into an open air painting and grafitti area, a formal art-walk place. The article is extended a little about the latest use of the place. It can keep. for its new use. ~ Φαϊσάλ (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]
You cannot vote twice. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. Please review source assessment table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled al-Ayoubi

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

Article lacks notability. Only citation is a passing mention; found no WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Was prod July 30, 2012, two days after created. Fails WP:GNG. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, Ambassadors are not considered presumptively notable. The article has only one reference, and (WP:NEXIST!) I can't find any coverage in reliable sources focusing on the individual himself; only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that verify he was, indeed, an ambassador. No significant coverage of his involvement in any major diplomatic event, either, nor his involvement in crafting any important treaty or bilateral agreement — two criteria which WP:DIPLOMAT says may suggest notability. A minor, non-notable figure who doesn't merit an article. --AgusTates (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Syria, and England. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 02:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I offer no opinion on the merits of the article itself, but I did want to note that despite the nominator's claim, I didn't notice anything in the article history to indicate this was ever tagged for PROD at any point (and the date claimed for that, supposedly two days after created, was in fact the creation date of the article). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He may meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC - as well as the 2019 source which is in the article as an External Reference, a quick search of Newspapers.com shows international coverage of his defection in 2012 (which is what he did - not mentioned in the article), and an article in 2013. I'll add some sources and info and come back. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. He received lots of news coverage from 2012 through 2021, easily meeting WP:SIGCOV and preemptively disproving WP:BLP1E. He's notable as a defector, not as a diplomat. Bearian (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:BLP1E - I don't know how that's been disproved here. The "lots of news coverage" link does not work for me, and my own BEFORE search only brings up a small number of hits, all around the time of the event he's known for, except for the Barnsley retrospective, which really isn't enough for a BLP. We could redirect to "list of Syrian defectors." SportingFlyer T·C 04:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. Just noting that the nominator is a brand new account whose first edits were sending articles to AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Abdul Karim

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. AgusTates (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Kuwait, Lebanon, and Syria. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 02:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd assume being the general manager of the Syrian Arab News Agency and the national Syrian television channel would be relevant factors here too. /Julle (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - if he's important enough for the United States government to sanction him, then it's likely that he's notable. I'm not a fan ofAl-Jazeera, but the consensus of editors is that the English language edition is a reliable source; see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Bassam Imadi. Bearian (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Property Couch

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

All of the sources in this article are non-RSes, and most of them are affiliated with the podcast. I couldn't find better sources WP:BEFORE either. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Marc Rives

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. The sourcing is very weak, and I haven't been able to find anything better. The great majority of the edits have been made by the WP:SPA User:RJMarco, which from the name seems to be the guy himself. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Authors, Arts, Morocco, and France. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 01:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with nominator's reasoning, the lack of WP:RS is especially concerning as it is also a BLP. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 01:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft I think it should be drafted. He has won a lot of awards including the order of merit - Ordre des Palmes académiques which is major civilian award which likely makes him notable. The art as well, if they can be proved to be a museum or permanent collection would pass WP:NARTIST. There is lot potentially if it could be proven. There is lots more. The article itself is a mess and needs a significant copyedit and it also needs sourced. Some time in draft would give that space. If there is not enough coverage I could stubify it. scope_creep^Talk 09:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being a recipient of the Palmes académiques is not likely at all to make someone notable. More than 6,000 people receive this medal each year, and it used to be almost two times more until a few years ago. BilletsMauves^€500 13:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(weak) Keep: significant coverage in a reliable and independent media outlet, addressing the subject in depth and directly (3 articles) https://actu.fr/normandie/bernay_27056/jean-marc-rives-expose-a-leveil-normand_54969366.html https://actu.fr/normandie/bernay_27056/sur-murs-leveil-paysages-jean-marc-rives_9291390.html https://actu.fr/normandie/ferrieres-saint-hilaire_27239/eure-ce-peintre-international-sort-un-livre-pour-apprendre-a-dessiner_60960106.html + (not really independent nor in depth) https://www.paris-normandie.fr/id521597/article/2024-05-11/dedicace-de-jean-marc-rives-la-fabrique-de-la-risle-de-beaumont-le-roger A drastic cleanup is due, though. -Mushy Yank. 09:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The changes made are minimal on links or inaccurate statements and I did not create the article. I do not know who created it. This article should be checked and formatted before thinking about deleting it in my opinion.

Kind regards RJMarco (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal (podcast)

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

I couldn't find any independent sources about this podcast. I'd expect a WSJ-affiliated podcast to have sigcov but it doesn't look like it does. Unless someone else has better luck, maybe it should be a redirect to The Wall Street Journal? BuySomeApples (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Radio, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Furniture Confederation

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

Declined prod. 1 of the 2 sources added is a non independent source from Furniture News. Most of the 10 google news hits for this org are from the non independent Furniture News. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guest family

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

Genealogical cruft. Cobbled together from unconnected parts with no overarching coverage of this extended family. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Vik

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

Non notable film maker. No notable productions. Lots of awards but none are major. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Wonderland is straight PR with no by-line. Forbes plethora of top howevermany of whatever are not significant. LA Weekly is straight PR. Same with Flaunt. There is a big push to promote her but Wikipedia is not a venue for that. Spam built by a cast of SPAs, UPE and socks. Telling is the representation in the opening sentence. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Czech Republic, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What about the awards here? Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Brandon Field

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

Non notable actor. Lots of small parts but no significant roles in notable productions. (Significance of parts is puffed up in the article, "significant" part in Lotus Eaters (film)? No) Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lots of interviews where he talks about himself but not much else. Closest is the GQ piece on the Winehouse hologram tour where he is mentioned a few times but that's not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, England, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Future in Chains

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

The book described in this Wikipedia article doesn't seem to exist in any relevant libraries; in fact, the article also doesn't discuss or mention anything about the work's publisher. I strongly presume a self-published novel.

Large portions of the article seem to be composed in a non-neutral manner by an LLM. I doubt that the opinions described in the article can be found in any meaningful publications.

The article doesn't cite any reliable secondary sources. Let me present a quick source analysis:

Footnote 1: Refers to Daily Times Nigeria; the text is very obviously LLM-generated, and the author's profile in that source indicates to me that the account (called ada-ada) is used for advertising and promotion. It is not a reliable source.

Footnote 2: Refers to Vanguard News. Same LLM-text as found in FN1; the source includes a disclaimer that reads Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions of Vanguard newspapers or any employee thereof. Obviously not a useable source.

Footnote 3: (The Nation Newspaper) could possibly be a reasonable source, but I am not sure. Either way, it heavily quotes the subject, and thus, it is not intellectually independent or indicative of notability.

Footnote 4: Despite containing author information, the article is actually posted with a "The Editor" profile, and the text reminds me of something LLM-generated.

Footnote 5: dto. FN 2.

Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The references are quite weird given they use edited photos of the author and LLM generated text.

The article creator was blocked for paid editing so Delete an article created by a banned user without substantial edits by anyone else. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and the fact that this looks heavily promotional in nature.Plasticwonder (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article passed WP:Nbook, this subject was reviewed by literary critics in The Lagos Review, Afrocritik and Premium Times. They're all reliable source. Though I'm not voting for keep or delete. Whatever the outcome may be. Goodluck 102.90.100.245 (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Why are we so eager to delete? Two reviews are okay for me to say that this article meets WP:NBOOK. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this article clearly meets WP:NBOOK. It only needed clean up, which has been done already. We should always conduct a thorough investigation before nominating any article for deletion. Ok1616 11:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass WP:NBOOK. Equine-man (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. The author has written more than two dozen books, all of them self-published, none of which has seen any degree of success [39]. It strains credulity to believe that a handful of news outlets are suddenly interested in covering the author's latest book, which is also self-published and also has no evidence of being commercially successful. The current sources are highly suspect and offer no explanation for why they are covering the book:

The Daily Times article is clearly LLM-generated.
The articles from Vanguard and The Nation are overly promotional puff pieces. Sample quote: Nigerian author Ndifreke Ukpong has released his much-anticipated novel A Future in Chains - much-anticipated by whom, exactly?
The Afrocritik article also reads as LLM-generated. Even worse, the article's content is reproduced word for word on another website with a different author name. The Afrocritik article is by "Ime John", and this Southern Examiner article is by "Levi Chidiebere".

There is clearly paid promotion and AI at work here. Given the wiki article's AI-generated origins, the article creator being blocked for paid editing, and AI-generated Goodreads reviews on the author's books [40] [41] — enough red flags are flying that this content does not belong on Wikipedia unless the book is reviewed by two clearly independent sources. Astaire (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Astaire. I would also add that none of the author's books seem to be more than about 100 pages long, with a couple being as short as 30 pages. Obviously that's not inherently a problem, but combined with everything else it makes it pretty obvious that this author is churning out lots of short, self-published books to sell on Amazon, then paying for AI-generated "reviews" and other promotional coverage. Paid reviews and advertising by the author are explicitly excluded under WP:NBOOK. Given all of these red flags, I agree that this does not belong on Wikipedia unless it can be shown that the book has been covered by unambiguously independent sources. MCE89 (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Astaire said the book review in Afrocritik and Southerne examiner are the same thing, but different author. It's true, Ime John reviewed the book in Afrocritik while Levi Chidiebere published it in Southerner Examiner, under Arts and Culture. I don't see anything wrong with that because he didn't claims to be the one reviewing the book. There is no evidence that this book reviews was paid publication. This publication is known for investigative journalism [42]. Astaire didn't point out those review on RS, only pointed out Afrocritik and Southern Examiner which was published by Levi, anyone can publish a review under Arts and Culture, as long they didn't claims to be the owner of the review. But why are we always quick to say delete without proper research? 102.90.80.11 (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Islamicjerusalem Studies

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

This term is not notable and fails WP:N. Per WP:NEO, "neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." This seems to be the case here, as this term is used primarily by the organization of the individual who coined the term, and is essentially nonexistent elsewhere. The topic is also already covered in a thoroughly sourced manner in Islamization of Jerusalem. --Eelipe (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AXS Pte Ltd

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are mentions, routine announcements, or otherwise unreliable so not meeting WP:ORGCRIT. Not sure how this made it out of AfC after being draftified and then being made even more promotional by SPA. CNMall41 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. CNMall41 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Must be re-written to exclude promotional content and adhere to neutrality. While CNMall41 I understand your sentiment, this company passes WP:NCORP by being covered multiple times in The Straits Times, SG Business Times, and The Mothership (at the very least), all independent sources in Singapore. All articles I've checked have author name and no sponsored credentials. There are more than 20 sources listed on the page, with at least 3 unique ones I've mentioned. Would you please specify how that fails WP:NCORP? Silvymaro (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He explained that in the nomination. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you supply a list of the references you feel meet WP:ORGCRIT. Also, the statement "have author name and no sponsored credentials" raises red flags.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CNMall41, I believe the article about AXS Pte Ltd should not be deleted, as it meets Wikipedia's WP:NCORP criteria for notability. Here’s why:

Significant Coverage: The company has been featured multiple times in The Straits Times, SG Business Times, and The Mothership, all of which are reliable, independent sources. For example:
- "AXS launches app for cardless parking at some malls and commercial buildings". CNA. Retrieved 20 January 2025.
- "联合创办人吴麟书：AXS可成为区域首个跨市场付款金融科技公司". www.zaobao.com.sg (in Simplified Chinese). Retrieved 20 January 2025.
Independent Sources: All cited articles are written by third-party journalists, with no paid sponsorships or press release content. These are all national newspapers and publications in Singapore - Straits Times: Daily newspaper in Singapore - Channel News Asia: Singaporean national locally and international free-to-air terrestrial and satellite television news channel - Zaobao: is the largest Singaporean Chinese-language newspaper with a daily circulation of about 136,900 (print and digital) as of 2021. - Mothership: Mothership’s, press accredited digital media platform that was approved by the Ministry of Communications and Information in Singapore which has access to government information, news, and events.
Meeting Notability Guidelines AXS Pte Ltd fulfills WP:NCORP, as it is a key player in Singapore’s electronic payment ecosystem.

If there are specific changes or improvements still required, I’m happy to work on them further. I kindly request that the article not be deleted, as the company’s notability is supported by credible sources and its impact on Singapore’s payment landscape. Thank you for your consideration. Elvintjs11 (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elvintjs11, try again without using AI to write your response. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 04:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elvintjs11:, please see WP:CIR. If you are unable to look at the specific guideline provided to you ([{WP:ORGCRIT]]) and provide a simply response with a list of references meeting that criteria, I won't be able to assist you with reviewing them. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is clearly a major service in Singapore and meets WP:NCORP based on the coverage by major Singapore media over the years. The article was very promotional and I suggest a rewrite, I have already toned it down somewhat and I agree with Silvymaro that this subject is notable and needs a cleanup. It should also probably be renamed as per WP:NCCORP to remove the "Pte Ltd" unless needed for disambiguation. Sargdub (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: !Keep votes, kindly stick to specific P&Gs of Wikipedia in your rationale that explains why this article should be included, along with references supporting your claim. Relisting for further discussion and a source eval.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Setting Yesterday Free

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

I can find no evidence that this album meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Propose merge/redirect to Mark Heard as an alternative to deletion Emm90 (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 02:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Connoisseur's Bakery

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:CORP. Nothing in google news. 1 of the 2 supplied sources is its website. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Northern Ireland. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orodruin (disambiguation)

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

Only one non-primary topic. GilaMonster536 (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 00:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- (strong) -- My understanding of DAB is that it would support deletion of this page, per the nominator, @GilaMonster536. Currently, "Orodruin" re-directs to Mount Doom. What is the point of this page?
MWFwiki (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- By the looks of it, it is to disambiguate three things named "Orodruin", and point to the three different articles where the three may be found. Uncle G (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a fine DAB. Sarsenet (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (page creator) per WP:TWOOTHER, now that another editor has added another item to the dab. Java Hurricane 06:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]