Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

7 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 06	January 08 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

John Malcolm (Canadian farmer)

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

Non-notable biography that fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. No real claim of notability; the subject is described as a "successful farmer... minor entrepreneur and innkeeper". (As with non-notable grandson Bill Malcolm, this also fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY.) None of the sources show WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. We have:

WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, some in in local history blogs/pages ([1], [2]), one in a book ([3]).
A WP:SPS self-published local history book ([4])
WP:PRIMARYSOURCES such as census records (a Scottish primary source reference turns up an empty result)
WP:USERGENERATED uploads of primary source genealogical materials from the page creator ([5], [6] and a user-generated genealogy site.

Nothing else qualifying turned up in a BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Scotland, and Canada. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contextual political analysis

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

AFD as the article has been draftified before and PROD can be contested. The subject of the article is a concept. The concept itself is well covered in the book, but there are not enough independent sources that refer to this concept. The references include Max Weber's Political Thought, but it is not clear whether the concept of "contextual political analysis" is presented there as well or not.

In short, the concept is not notable enough. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abanny

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

I go to AFD as PROD may be contested and the article has been draftified before. The subject of the article didn't show any notability. The only reference that showed some notability is the soundreloaded.com.ng source, but I didn't think that particular article is enough to show notability per WP:GNG.

Other references are not good references as they are blogs, and some even referencing to government sites, definition of mathematics per Britannica or places that he studied.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lot of problems here and a WP:GNG/WP:NBIO/WP:NMUSIC failure. Likely an autobiography (compare creator's username with the subject's middle name). The sources are a mess, consisting of links to his own music ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]); and WP:USERGENERATED sites like SoundReloaded, AfrikaLyrics and a Blogger site. Finally, then the creator has added non-sequitur links that prove no claims in the story: The Britannica definition of mathematics to validate his degree in math, a link to the homepage of his supposed digital marketing school (I previously deleted that as WP:REFSPAM and will do so again), links to the homepages of Nigerian local governments and a news homepage ([13], [14], [15]) to "validate" the claim that This song became popular in various Nigerian cities. It's probably just outside the edge of another speedy deletion, but it absolutely fails any notability guideline we might apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Collins (footballer, born 2003)

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

One EFL league match. Fails GNG, routine articles only Canary757 (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Canary757 (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JN Data A/S

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

Not notable IT company; no reliable sources Cinder painter (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Million Model Catwalk

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

Google news, plus other web search engines and tools show that this is not notable topic (campaign) and should be removed. Cinder painter (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Websites, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Localgiving

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

Could not find additional sources; the existing two are poor and event-based (e.g., launching of the platform). Cinder painter (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bmycharity

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

Not notable (defunct) company; no previous good and reliable media mentions found; Cinder painter (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xperedon

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

Not notable initiative, no reliable sources or general notability. Cinder painter (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sinitus

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

Dead links mainly and no rs. New online search did not bring reliable sources; should be removed Cinder painter (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Bank (Greece)

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

Not notable defunct bank with poor sources Cinder painter (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rabitabank

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

Lacking reliable sources to meet notability guidelines; the references are primarily from the bank itself. Cinder painter (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tomato Bank

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

I don't see how this defunct Chinese bank passes WP:NCORP. No reliable sources or significant coverage Cinder painter (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NBGI Private Equity

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

I don't see how it passes WP:NCORP. Some pdfs, paid or profile nature references. Cinder painter (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Greece, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nordea Bank Lietuva

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

I don't see how it passes WP:NCORP. Could be redirected to the Nordea page Cinder painter (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nordea Bank Norge

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

I don't see how it passes WP:NCORP. The notability banner has remained unresolved for 12 years. Cinder painter (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 138573

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 34880

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

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 174569

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

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 41162

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

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 222399

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

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S. Ramachandran (politician)

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

The subject of this article fails WP:NPOL. The article was proposed for deletion few days ago, but the author removed it without addressing the concerns or demonstrating how the article satisfies the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Idoghor Melody (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. Idoghor Melody (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S. Ramachandran is a politician who is the secretary of the Tamil Nadu unit of CPIM which is one of the only six national parties of India [This can be soon become one of the only five national parties because BSP is on the verge of losing the status]. Besides the article has some reliable sources and secondary sources and hence it meets the general notability guideline. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides multiple Wikipedia articles having less citations or having no citations stay on Wikipedia. But it has already 3 reliable sources and secondary sources and more can be added. An improvement tag can be added but deletion is right. XYZ 250706 (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Marjan Island LLC

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I find some references about the island (which is still in development), but nothing I find meets WP:ORGCRIT for this company which is involved in the development. CNMall41 (talk) 09:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. CNMall41 (talk) 09:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mallzee

AfDs for this article:

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

Mallzee shut down in 2021. The article was flagged for neutrality and promotional content in August 2017, it is written mostly like a self-interested ad, and with the lack of any changes to rectify those issues or any edits to indicate the business shut down evidences minimal interest in article. At present, I feel the article doesn't provide encyclopaedic value and given the years of opportunity since the closure of the business without as much as an update indicating such, I doubt the quality of this article will improve. ~ Chip 🐺 08:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Chip 🐺 08:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it passes WP:NORG, even considering some articles, the coverage was incidental. ~ Chip 🐺 08:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Software, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FXORO

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

The sources are poor and unreliable; press coverage is almost nonexistent, and many citations come from the company’s own website. BoraVoro (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, Companies, and Cyprus. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coinme

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

Very small crypto exchange, no direct sources with in-depth media coverage. Mainly press coverage on people or events somehow connected to the crypto and the company. BoraVoro (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, Companies, Technology, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

STONEX India

AfDs for this article:

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

Not meeting NCORP; relisting again after delreview BoraVoro (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close due to an ongoing deletion review for this topic. I appreciate BoraVoro acknowledging their close of the previous AFD was incorrect. However it is not appropriate to have an AFD and DRV running simultaneously. Based on the current state of that DRV (consensus to relist appears to be forming), it would be best to close this AFD and relist the already-started discussion so users can directly respond to the points brought up there. Frank Anchor 14:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Embrum Highway 417 pileup

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

Fails WP:NEVENT, lacks WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. All sources are from February 2006. Article claims a legacy of being Canada's second-deadliest multi-vehicle collision, but it's cited to WP, and I can't find any other sources discussing this event in that context. ~ A412 ^talk! 08:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Canada. ~ A412 ^talk! 08:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bop House

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

The house itself fails WP:GNG. Some of the sources listed in the article isn't even RS, Google News yield none RS sources. Though IDK if Elle or this Yahoo Entertainment article is RS? Nonetheless, it still fails WP:SIGCOV Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patric Elder

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

This is a WP:BLP that was rejected at AfC for a lack of notability. Of additional concern is WP:NPF: half of this article of a BLP is an unsourced "Controversies" section (the only inline source is the IBO academic integrity policy). CMD (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Malaysia. CMD (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom non notable fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I remove the unsourced "Controveries" section per WP:BLPSOURCE. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Still fails WP:BIO/WP:GNG - I had declined as a draft. Strangely, they had said they understood and again here the issue, but then decided just to move to main and blank the talk page feedback. KylieTastic (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perceived notability seems to stem from unsourced controversies, now removed. /Julle (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verlag Anton Saurwein

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

I couldn't find any significant coverage of this company, failing WP:NCORP. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 07:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 07:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bananana

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

Neither List of programmes broadcast by ntv7 nor List of programmes broadcast by 8TV (Malaysian TV network) mentions anything named Bananana. Also, Banananas Music is a partial title match. So, a disambiguation page like this is not needed. GTrang (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. GTrang (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears more as if it were created from search engine results rather than from content found on Wikipedia, therefore making it functionally useless. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Banana (disambiguation) Plausible misspelling; the 8TV block is actually mentioned on List of programmes broadcast by TV3 (Malaysia) so that was in error, and it seems like it moved to NTV7 during a time 8TV carried Nickelodeon programming instead, so it's a duplicate mention. Whatever the case, mention on the dab page as a secondary spelling is proper. Nate • (chatter) 23:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are two legitimate entries on the page now. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The disambiguation has limited utility, with only two entries, one being a partial title match and both topics can be addressed within their respective articles.

Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this discussion currently does not have a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G14. The two entries does not even have a Wikipedia page Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jut (topography)

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

This metric is really cool but I don't think it's notable, since I can only find the unpublished arXiv source, a couple blogs and other websites that don't meet Wikipedia's RS standards. (t · c) buidhe 06:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was going to try to make a good keep argument here but it looks like it's only discussed in a single academic paper from 2022. SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baarmutha, Victoria

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

Non-notable place, and not a real locality. Contains only a single source, and according to both google maps and the Australian Bureau of Statistics, this place does not exist. Likely a historical place that does not exist any more and thus doesn't meet requirements for notability. I don't like deleting articles relating to georaphy as Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) states that "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." however, Baarmutha is not legally recognised and it seems the area it is purported to be in, is part of Beechworth. Viatori (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found this book: [16], but I don't have access to it. Would that be enough for notability? I would tend to think a place that had a post office for that long would be at least somewhat documented, but maybe post offices work differently in Australia. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie Smith

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

Non-notable figure skater. No way do those passing mentions in the provided sources meet the standards of "significant coverage". The first simply verifies that she finished 4th at the U.S. championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Colorado, and Skating. Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Surely, our friendly neighborhood nominator must understand by now that the sources present in an article are not the entirety of the sources available. Right? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 JTtheOG (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have membership for this particular archive, so therefore I can't read the sources offered, but have no reason to doubt the posts above and finishing fourth in the World Championships seems to suggest presumed notability to me. No surprise to find few sources on google in 2025 given her achievements were over 45 years ago.Canary757 (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources kindly added to article.Canary757 (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified by JTtheOG which I have clipped so open access to all and added to the article so Canary757 and others can review easier. KylieTastic (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noémie Silberer

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Switzerland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Equestrian Trade Association

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

Fails WP:NORG. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Currently defunct.Seems to have been created by COI user. Imcdc Contact 04:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Horse racing, and United States of America. Imcdc Contact 04:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Trade organization with little to no reliable secondary coverage. All the coverage about it that I could find appears to be promotional in nature. Does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:NORG. Thanks for assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not begin to satisfy WP:NCORP. Specifically:

Nothing on JSTOR
Two press-releases and two passing mentions on EBSCO
No verifiable mention on Scholar
One verifiable passing mention on GBooks.

The only content in the page actually supported by any of the three sources cited is that at least one show was held in Baltimore. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Isabel Drescher

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level international medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Germany. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have found a couple of things for her on the same website Westfalische Rundschau [17] and [18]. One of these is about her when she is very young and the other one is one long paragraph so still some way short of establishing notability but it gets the discussion started.Canary757 (talk) 07:11, 1 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!} 04:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Carquillat

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

Non-notable figure skater. While she did finish in first place at the 2004 Swiss Championships, her score was too low to be awarded the title of Swiss Champion. I found this one article where she was mentioned in passing as now coaching. I'll let the community decide whether that qualifies as "significant coverage". Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Switzerland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there is no corresponding article on the German Wikipedia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. The article's author was a sock of the blocked user Sabupusi, WP:G5 applies. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Singaporean 2nd Infantry ambush

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

This is a ChatGPT-generated article about a purported ambush. That includes the AI searching out the references itself. This can be seen on the nlb url in the first version, and otherwise confirmed by the users various talkpage posts, and a similar AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaccan-Siamese war. Now, while it appears there was indeed some military incident that did kill 8 people, I am unsure if it is notable as a standalone incident. Some of the sources listed are just photos with none of the supposed information, others are broken gbooks links with no preview (based on other now deleted articles and drafts, I am fully confident the AI just made the book references up and the author never checked them anyway). Others do mention an incident did occur (eg), but they date it to February 28, so ChatGPT got that wrong. At a quick BEFORE, I do find the incident mentioned elsewhere (eg), but nothing I'd be happy to say is in-depth coverage. In any case, even if there is sustained coverage (who knows, it might be in a book), the made up text and sources probably mean this is a WP:TNT case that would need to be written from scratch anyway. CMD (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Malaysia, and Singapore. CMD (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination, doesn't seem worth preserving. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 06:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Caroline Gülke

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

Non-notable figure skater; highest medal placement was silver at the German nationals. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Germany. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A brief google search turns up [[19]], which while paywalled appears to have WP:SIGCOV from what I can read. A couple of sentences here but not what I'd call SIGCOV [[20]]. The corresponding German article has no non-database sources, so that doesn't help the case for this subject. Still undecided here. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are other articles about her in Berliner Zeitung such as [21].Canary757 (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  With that additional source, I'm inclined to say this is a weak keep as there are multiple pieces of WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a Keep vote and this article has already been PROD'd.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avayalik

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

This needs to be redirected to Avayalik Islands, but I think that's a form of soft deletion and am so nominating it. Avayalik-1 is a Dorset archaeological site on the Avayalik Islands. The islands article has some cited content about the site, and the islands are notable primarily for their artifacts. This article seems to be about Avayalik-1, but written before dating established the site as Dorset. It should be redirected rather than deleted, because it's a plausible search term. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and Islands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OpenCoffee Club

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

Fails WP:GNG. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 03:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and United Kingdom. Imcdc Contact 03:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find anything for notability. There are a lot of trivial mentions to local clubs. The best sources with significant coverage I could find include: Local news source where the reporter has a conflict of interest (went to a meeting about a startup funded by her organization). Masters thesis, not reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. readwrite.com article, a website that appears to have little to no editorial oversight. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find the WP:SIGCOV for the WP:GNG to be met here. Let'srun (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: informal networking meetings over coffee are about as routine an activity as you can get, nothing about this stands out as notable. I'm going to get a coffee after making this comment, not going to write an article about DnB's Morning Brew. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 06:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the 2023 Alberta general election

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

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

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

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

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

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

Content forks of unclear necessity. The standard format for Canadian provincial election results is to include the final vote counts in the unified "candidates" tables within the main election article first, and then consider moving that table to a new separate "results" page only if article-size considerations demand that. That is, separate results pages do not always have to exist across the board separately from the main election article: that's a size control option, not a standard requirement. And when a separate results page does exist it's supposed to do so instead of the candidates table being present in the main election article, not alongside that, and it's supposed to consist of the candidates table being moved from the main election article so that the separate page looks like this.
But that's not what's happening here: all of these pages exist alongside, not instead of, the candidates tables still being present in the main election articles, and all of them are transcluding individual "district results" templates instead of using the unified table like they're supposed to.
Additionally, it warrants note that these were all created within the past month by a (non-Canadian, as far as I know) editor who doesn't really contribute on Canadian politics on a regular, ongoing basis, and instead tends to jump in only on election nights to create a hashpile of improperly formatted stubs about the newly elected legislators, which other people inevitably end up having to repair after the fact -- just in October's New Brunswick election alone, I and another editor both had to post to their talk page to tell them they were doing things wrong, and at least in my case it wasn't the first time I had to post to their talk page to tell them they were doing things wrong.
Again, it's an either/or choice between including the candidates table in the main article without a separate results page, or moving the candidates table to a separate results page instead of being in the main article. There's simply no prior precedent or need to duplicate the same information in two different places, and no election ever needs both a candidates table in the main article and a separate results page. It's one or the other, not both, and either way it needs to be formatted via the unified table, not via the transclusion of 50-70 individual district results templates. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These pages are for the templates to make it easier to view results than the tables which are difficult to read. I am currently constructing Results of the 2024 New Brunswick general election as the riding results on some pages are still missing. Moondragon21 (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to arbitrarily decree that all of the hundreds of Canadian election articles that are doing things the way I described are doing it wrong, or arbitrarily impose a new way of doing them — you would need to establish a consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada that the old way is a problem and that your way fixes it.

The tables are not "difficult" to read in any way, and the templates do not make it "easier". The tables, in fact, offer necessary information that your templates completely fail to provide. Since the tables group districts regionally, for example, it's possible to view variations in regional support — was one party significantly more or less popular in one region than it was in another, etc. — that a strictly alphabetical list fails to reveal. And since the tables have an incumbent column, they offer a way to track whether each incumbent was reelected, defeated or just didn't run again at all, which using the individual riding results templates fails to achieve.

Both of those are necessary information in a compendium of election results, which the existing format fulfills and your new variant format does not. So you would need a consensus that the long-established standard way of doing election results — either in the main article without having a separate results page to repeat the same results, or moving the table to a standalone results page without keeping duplicate data in the main article at all anymore — needs to be changed, and are not entitled to arbitrarily decree that yourself. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- - I do not mean to be imposing anything. I noticed that Ontario was the only province with separate pages so I did the same for other provinces. If the formatting is the only issue then that can be solved. The tables are difficult to read particularly on mobile devices, and vote share and candidate names are missing unlike the templates where they are included. As the ridings aren't in alphabetical order it is hard to navigate. Also there are some misconceptions here I do edit Canadian politics on a regular basis and not just election nights. Check my edit history. I recently completed the NB election results for each riding two months after the fact. As for the "hashpile of improperly formatted stubs" I believe they are of better quality now. Also it should be noted that I did not create all of these pages; Results of the 2020 British Columbia general election was created by User:RedBlueGreen93. How would I go about getting a consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada? Moondragon21 (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's worth noting that Ontario has a separate page potentially as it the largest province with 124 seats in their legislature, and there would be article size related constraints to not doing so. Similar to how federal elections in Canada have their own distinct results page see Results of the 2021 Canadian federal election by riding for the 2021 Canadian federal election. Can also be said, that both the Ontario page which is mentioned and the fed. election page follow a different design than the articles in this nomination.
    
    Given that results in both prov. and fed. elections in Canada vary tremendously by region of a province - or the country - i would make that case that regional groupings (of alphabetical constituencies) for election results makes considerable more sense than alphabetical across the whole province. But I would say that this is a conversation for a different forum other than AfD. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all These appear duplicative to the main articles. I do not see an advantage to list the results in a redundant page just to be able to use Template:Election box, and I don't see how 2020 British Columbia general election#Results by riding is "difficult to read". I think the concise table is much better than having dozens of the election box templates, and we should be moving away from the latter in general for pages that cover multiple elections. Reywas92^Talk 16:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 2020 British Columbia general election#Results by riding is "difficult to read" because they are not in alphabetical order instead they are listed by region. These pages are similar to those for Australian states as seen at Category:Electoral results in Australia which I presumed were comparable with the pages that exist for Ontario elections. Moondragon21 (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't mind that these articles exist, but I do agree with Bearcat that it's nice to have the ridings ordered by region and having an incumbent column, which these articles lack. Though, I do see why having the ridings ordered alphabetically would be useful as well. But, I'm not sure if just having a bunch of result templates by riding is all that useful other than to show the results by riding, alphabetically. They don't show the incumbents, and don't really let the reader compare the results with other ridings like a sortable list might accomplish. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it has to be either/or as both can exist as Results of the 2011 Ontario general election by riding compliments 2011 Ontario general election. The listing of templates is standard for pages like Results of the 2024 Queensland state election. I think its helpful to see candidates alongside vote share. Moondragon21 (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all articles mentioned in original nom. Articles are redundant (WP:REDUNDANTFORK) to the main page for each election, and don't provide any new valuable information that couldn't be found on each respective constituency/elected officeholder page. Using Ontario as an example doesn't make sense as it's the largest provinces, which may require a stand-alone article - not due to notability or ease - but due to overall article size - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These would be valid forks if they needed to be (if the election article was long enough), but I agree as currently written they are duplicative, though they do present information in a slightly different format, so I don't think they're redundant. At the end of the day though we only need the results sorted one way. SportingFlyer T·C 01:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe at some point there will need to be a discussion about statistics and table use in Canadian election articles. Essentially, statistical information is repeated (i.e., Three results tables) and reorganized several times (i.e., below this) in Canadian election articles while there is limited substantive encyclopedic content about the election itself. However, addressing this issue, there appears to be three methods to display the statistical results of Canadian elections, they each convey slightly different information in a different manner.

1. Candidate Table: generally a table organized on the axis of electoral district (x) and political party (y) that provides the name of each candidate, as well as the incumbent (if present). Some include the number of votes and percentage of total votes each candidate received. BC 2001 Name and Votes Example, AB 1909 Name, Vote and %. As a note, I have created several of these in the past, but other users have also created these tables.

2. Statistical Table: tables created by @Raellerby that provide statistical information regarding the number of votes and party choice of each electoral district. BC 2001 Statistical Table Example.

3. CanElec Template Lists: tables created by @Moondragon21 that incorporates the individual electoral district's CanElec result template for each district in the election. Note, this is the standard used for pages for individual electoral districts when displaying historical election results.

Personally, it is my opinion that only one of the Candidate Table and Statistical Tables should be the primary method of displaying election results in the article. The Candidate Table effectively lists each candidate that participated in the election, which is desirable because notable individuals may stand in an election but not be elected. The Statistical Table effectively lists important information about vote counts, pluralities, and other similar information in a sortable manner. It is my opinion that only one should appear on the main article because these articles are becoming too long to meaningfully navigate. A results page would take a vast majority of this other statistical content out of the main article (Example almost everything below this). However, shorter provincial election pages may be able to fit both Candidate Table and Statistical Tables on the main article. Once there is sufficient encyclopedic content on a provincial election page, then a specific results page can be created. - Caddyshack01 (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Caddyshack01 has summarized the situation and issues succinctly. I created the Statistical Tables to better align Canadian election articles with those for the UK parliamentary elections, and they have turned out to be much more revealing compared to the Candidate Tables.Raellerby (talk) 16:29, 6 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!} 03:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apify

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

Appears to be entirely promotional and lacks WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Czech Republic. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article to include Czech and Slovak sources, in which the company has sustained coverage going back to 2017. Below are examples, which show the company to be notable in the Central European startup and business community. Additionally, a search of Stack Overflow's site shows many pages of developer discussion about Apify, indicating its widespread use.

https://zpravy.aktualne.cz/finance/nakupovani/black-friday-skutecne-slevy-porovnani/r~ab190004d43d11e7984d0cc47ab5f122/

https://cc.cz/apify-nepresvedcilo-investory-miliardove-ambice-tak-vystridalo-propousteni-krizi-ale-nakonec-prezilo/

https://www.hrot24.cz/clanek/do-apify-priteklo-70-milionu-korun-prazsky-startup-se-chce-stat-dalsim-ceskym-jednorozcem-HVEEd

https://fontech.startitup.sk/umela-inteligencia-regulacia-slovensko-pre-a-proti/

https://www.zive.cz/clanky/internet-patri-botum-ne-lidem-cesti-apify-je-prodavaji-jako-aplikace-podcast-zive/sc-3-a-229824/default.aspx

https://cc.cz/tezi-data-z-webu-a-je-v-zisku-datove-apify-ma-pres-200-tisic-uzivatelu-ted-nabira-70-milionu/

https://www.lupa.cz/aktuality/cesti-scraperi-webovych-dat-apify-ziskali-od-j-t-a-fryce-desitky-milionu-na-dalsi-expanzi/

https://www.cfoworld.cz/clanky/cfo-pod-lupou-dusan-antos-apify/

https://www.e15.cz/byznys/cesky-startup-dodal-evropske-komisi-program-ktery-hlida-e-shopy-s-falesnymi-slevami-1413801

https://www.businessinfo.cz/clanky/necista-hra-se-zakazniky/

https://www.cnews.cz/clanky/cerny-patek-2017-alza-czc-mall-falesne-slevy/

https://www.trend.sk/trend-archiv/hlavne-to-nepokazit-startupy-apify-yieldigo-memsource-to-maju-nasliapnute-elitneho-klubu

https://cc.cz/startupawards2024/apify/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnookums123 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage.

Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject has 13 news articles that meet the notability criteria of being significant, independent, reliable and secondary. The fact that many of them are in Czech or Slovak doesn't meet they don't meet the criteria, and a search of developer forums shows the software is widely used among English speakers in any case. ‪Ignatiusjreillythefirst‬ (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignatiusjreillythefirst (talk • contribs) 00:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article contains a promotional section but has reliable sources. The page would benefit from cleanup to improve its structure and neutrality. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has reliable sources and passes WP:COMPANY. XwycP3 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article passes WP:SUSTAINED notability because it has 24 references going back to 2017. Sources are reliable and independent of the subject. Additionally, another editor removed the section listing the company's products, which should take care of the WP:PROMOTION concern. Schnookums123 (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though we suddenly have a week's worth of keep !votes, I question the neutrality of the new accounts that edit as if those contributors are not new (not that I'm saying this applies to all respondents). Additional views by some more of Wikipedia's demonstrably experienced contributors would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glokk40Spaz

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Laun chba ller 01:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Charitably it is too soon. In his first AfD about a year ago, he got one "weak keep" vote because he is signed to Columbia Records, but that is not enough. He is listed at the company website: [22], but with no supporting info ("Read More" leads nowhere). I can find no information from the label about any promotion of his releases or if they even released anything by him yet, despite what this article says. Meanwhile, he has no coverage in reliable music media and his stuff remains self-released on the usual platforms. Good luck to him if that big label puts in some effort, but nothing has yet happened to generate material for an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD. not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Albanese

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

This person doesn't seem notable enough to me. I cannot find any news coverage about her. Aŭstriano (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish her notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moopaz (talk • contribs) 22:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The only "vote" is from an account that was created today. I'd like to hear more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Omoha

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

Only one source passes WP:GNG while the rest are either personal website like this, or about his foundation likethis and press releases. All the awards too are run-of-the-mills. A WP:Before showed nothing than his visitations to prominent people Ibjaja055 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Green TV India

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

Fails WP:NCORP as there are no sources I can find that meet WP:ORGCRIT. Originally i though this was related to Green Entertainment Television but seems these are two separate entities for anyone searching name variations. CNMall41 (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

La Perdita Generacio

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

Per WP:Fancruft. This band does not seem to have received sufficient coverage outside of the Esperanto subculture. The only reference that is not in Esperanto is no longer retrievable. Aŭstriano (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Aŭstriano (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh at major beauty pageants

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

Procedural refiling of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thailand at the Big Four beauty pageants * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2,3-Bis(acetylmercaptomethyl)quinoxaline

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

Obscure chemical that I can only find two primary sources for in PubMed,[23][24] both of which are from the 1970s. Google search yields the two aforementioned sources, chemical databases, and Wikipedia. It's an anti-poliovirus drug but obviously doesn't have widespread use for that since polio is near eradication. It's also for herpes but doesn't seem to have any real-world usage in practice since other antivirals are used for that and there would be a lot more written about it if it were used. Velayinosu (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Medicine. Velayinosu (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, once notable always notable. It's reliably sourced and was of interest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is sourced to one of the two primary sources nom found, and to a dictionary that cites only that same primary source. One primary source isn't enough for notability, and with only two primary publications in 50 years, I would say this drug was never "once notable" either. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ademola Adesina

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

Apart from this puff piece from Londoner's post , all the sources are either pass mentioned, interview or nothing at all. Therefore all the sources fali WP:GNG and WP: SIGCOV cannot be established. Ibjaja055 (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Technology, Nigeria, and United Kingdom. Ibjaja055 (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamluk Royal Family

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

Fails WP:GNG. See Draft:Tamluk Royal Family; draft was repeatedly declined and then finally rejected for notability reasons before being recreated in article space regardless. As far as I can tell -- and I used Google Translate to search the cited Bengali sources for mentions of the word Tamluk in addition to checking Google Books for English sources -- none of the available secondary sources pass WP:SIGCOV. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, India, and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Romanko

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable individual. Article created for PR from a disposable account. Deleted twice in ru-wiki. Кронас (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist League of Turkey

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

I started this earlier today, but was informed that translations via Google Translate usually aren't acceptable. The reason I'm AfDing it is because looking back over it, I don't see WP:SIGCOV or WP:NORG being met, and didn't actually check notability prior to translation from Turkish, which I think has different notability standards. E_F⁵ 00:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. E_F⁵ 00:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Shellwood (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've been retranslating (the article was translated from German Wikipedia, not Turkish) and have added a couple of English-language references. The organization is referred to by various different translations, most using "Union" not "League". One of its own web pages uses "Union of Revolutionary Communists of Turkey", as does ICOR; the CIA uses "Turkish Revolutionary Communists' Union", while a paper by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada mentions the similar "Turkish Revolutionary Communist Union" but uses "Union of Revolutionary Communists of Turkey" in the heading. (And I found a redlink at Turkey Revolutionary Communist League that I have made into a redirect.) This variation complicates search, but if kept, the article should perhaps be moved to Union of Revolutionary Communists of Turkey. The IRB page has several citations including news coverage, and the German-language article already has a fair number of references, not all to the organization itself. I believe it meets GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Natrag Na Voz

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

Non-notable album. References are junk. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Repeatedly rejected at WP:AFC. scope_creep^Talk 00:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

these references contain proof NovaExplorer37 (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BPM are not valid references, and do nothing to establish notability. And there is also now Draft:Natrag Na Voz, which has been declined twice. And User:NovaExplorer37 put a false Featured article on the article, which I deleted. David notMD (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
well i could only use article wizard now all of a sudden i can create wiki articles?????? NovaExplorer37 (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and User:NovaExplorer37 please read the policy on notability before writing another article. --Richard Yin (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but these are the only sources!!!! NovaExplorer37 (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NovaExplorer37: That is the point. If enough solid, reliable sources can't be found then the subject does not reach the standard of notability.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
any way i can make the article better? NovaExplorer37 (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if u google "Notable Albums by Zana" Natrag Na Voz is mentioned. NovaExplorer37 (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so i added another source this time it mentions the album! and another one which mentions it about anniversary and a little type of biography that ok now or should i add more? NovaExplorer37 (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
forgot what sources i put on: One from a book and one which features Zana’s anniversary which also mentions the album (and on a book too)! NovaExplorer37 (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NovaExplorer37 please read WP:Notability, especially the general notability guideline section of the policy. If there are no reliable secondary sources which provide significant coverage, i.e. cover the subject in detail, the subject shouldn't have an article and nothing you do will magically make the subject deserve an article. Mentions in books or Google searches aren't enough, the source needs to actually spend significant page space talking about the subject in detail. Did a major newspaper publish an article reviewing the album, for example, or talking about the production process? Or did an author of a book devote an entire chapter to talking about it? --Richard Yin (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well in ex-Yugoslavs Books some did but rarely got published i See but this article is still a deserve to stay in wiki i declare. NovaExplorer2 (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]