en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 27 - Wikipedia

️Fri Apr 08 2011

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 per WP:SNOW. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

A reddit-introduced conlang of no apparent notability. The article was moved to draft but then reinstated in article space. ... discospinster _talk 22:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 22:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I created the page after seeing several well-known linguist influencers made comments on the language in videos, so I decided to research the language and make a page. I failed to cite my sources, so it was understandably moved to the draft space. I then cited it, and put it back on the main page. (Human1011 is one of the main influencers that commented on it) 23r2 (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article currently has three sources, all unreliable (two from reddit and one from fandom). I did a Google search and did not find any reliable source that even mentions the language. The language seems to be entirely non-notable. CodeTalker (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is not passed on WP:GNG plus cited a Reddit is not reliable per WP:RSPREDDIT. ROY is WAR Talk! 05:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as consist non-reliable sources --Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Creator is already on ANI for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:23r2 for WP:NOTHERE issues. Borgenland (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:CREATIVE. Acting, writing and directorial credits are too weak. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New York. Shellwood (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more info or sources are found. I haven't found any coverage, and his only significant role seems to be in Falcone (TV series). In terms of script-writing, his most significant contributions seem to be 1 episode out of 13 of the The Black Donnellys, and 1 episode of 12 as co-writer of 100 Code. That doesn't seem enough to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:CREATIVE. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:REDUNDANTFORK of multiple articles, especially Genghis Khan, which summarises all the information in this article, but also Mongol invasions and conquests and relevant subtopic articles. Suggest either delete or redirecting to Mongol invasions and conquests.

This article appears to have been constructed by poorly summarising a number of other articles (probably using WP:LLMs) and then impreciely adding references, so that many do not verify the text. If anyone can figure out what's meant to be said in the first paragraph of #Siege of Bukhara, please let me know. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Asia, and Mongolia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source clearly mentions the title as Conquests of Genghis Khan Which covers all the sub topic Mentioned in the article From page number 103–1121, No this is not made through LLM it has a human score of 90% verified by GPTZero. Mr.Hanes Talk 04:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (i.e., as a fork). Srnec (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If the creator wishes to keep working on it, draftify is acceptable to me. The topic per se is not illegitimate. Srnec (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this redundant fork, per nom. JFHJr (㊟) 04:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per my source analysis:

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: A Guide to 8,500 Battles from Antiquity through the Twenty-first Century [3 volumes]	WP:SCHOLARSHIP	Bloomsbury Publishing	✔ Yes
Genghis Khan : his life and legacy		Wiley	✔ Yes
Genghis Khan : his conquests, his empire, his legacy		Frank McLynn -- a renowned biographer and historiographer.	✔ Yes
The History Of The World Conqueror Vol I		Harvard University Press	✔ Yes
The Horde: How the Mongols Changed the World		Harvard University Press	✘ No
The History of the Mongol Conquests		Taylor & Francis	✔ Yes
The Mongol Empire		Edinburgh University Press	✔ Yes
Genghis Khan and the Mongol empire			✔ 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}}.

No AI hallucinations [1]. No WP:CFORK, we could take a simple instance like Campaigns of Nader Shah. Mr.Hanes Talk 19:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A source analysis can be helpful when evaluating whether a topic is WP:NOTABLE, but that wasn't the objection raised here (and I don't think anybody seriously doubts the notability here). It would be more helpful to expand upon your other points. You say that there are no AI hallucinations, while the nomination points to a specific paragraph in the article deemed suspicious/incomprehensible—what do you think about that paragraph vis-à-vis being written by an LLM? You say that this is not an inappropriate content fork while comparing it to other articles, whereas the nomination says that the contents are covered better elsewhere—what is it you think keeps this from being redundant? Sometimes we go for covering comparatively narrow topics in stand-alone articles, and other times we cover them as part of a broader topic—what is your WP:PAGEDECIDE argument for covering this topic separately being the preferable course of action? TompaDompa (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: to take a look at one incident of this extremely flawed source analysis: The Mongol Empire by Timothy May, marked above in the table, is cited twice in the article. It purports to cite three sentences in "Siege of Gurganj". The most this book says about the Siege of Gurganj is "Jochi marched along the Syr Darya towards Urgench and Khwarazm" on p. 62.

Similarly, the article says that the book verifies a paragraph about the Battle of the Indus. What the book actually says about the Battle of the Indus is "He then followed Jalal al-Din, finally catching him at the Indus River in 1221. With his flanks crumbling, Jalal al-Din spurred his horse off a cliff and into the river."

I don't know how Mr.Hanes wrote this article, but I suspect that if not LLMs, they looked at each individual article, wrote what they wanted, and then copied a couple of random citations to make it look legitimate. Needless to say, that is not how article writing should be. I think WP:TNT is quite possibly applicable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mongol invasions and conquests: as article is well-sourced and not a clear fork, though some content may have been copied from multiple pages. But, the topic closely overlaps with "Mongol Invasions and Conquests", making it somewhat duplicative. NXcrypto Message 02:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and above, to the suggested target. Mithilanchalputra (Talk) 15:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG requirements and Wikipedia:Notability (people). I searched online and could not find any verifiable references to demonstrate the notability of this person. A previous PROD had failed because it was said the individual was a member of the Egyptian parliament, however I could find no information to verify this. Coldupnorth (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Egypt. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have searched every possible repository for sources and I am unable to find anything about this person. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable search did not reveal any notable sources. ®asteem Talk 09:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject would be notable if he were Parliament of Egypt but without any sources we can't be sure that the article isn't a WP:HOAX. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. I did a search under his full name, but I only found one source or its mirrors, FamousFix, which is formerly known as WhosDatedWho, both of which are unreliable celebrity fan websites. Also, there are Zero Google hits for his charity, which doesn't exist. The Wafd Party existed 1919-1952, which it says he was a member of, but it was long before this alleged subject was active. Then it says he was active in the New Wafd Party, which is plausible, but they won only 15% of the vote in 1984 and had no appointed members. Nor is he mentioned as one of the four party leaders in the only article that I could find about it. The supposed list of activities is riddled with red links. Based upon my several online searches, and reasonable inferences, this page is a hoax. Bearian (talk) 09:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian if this gets closed tomorrow as a delete/hoax, it'll be exactly 16 years. Kazamzam (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there a list of hoaxes here? Bearian (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if this is a hoax, it would be one of the older ones at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia Coldupnorth (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Arabic version of the page (ar:محمد طايع) from which this was translated (mirrored here), was deleted in 2010 due to lack of notability. No evidence of him found by searching for his name in Arabic except for this memorial Facebook page. Turtlecrown (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - per this website there was an Upper Egypt MP in 2024 by the same name. But seems to be a different person anyhow. --Soman (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In al-Muṣawwar reporting on 1984 election result with names of winning candidates and their constituencies, we find the following on Google Books "وفى المنيا : حصل الوفد على مقعدين هما مقعد فاروق طه في الدائرة الاولى وأحمد شمرول في الدائرة محمد على طايع . وفى الاسكندرية : فاز الوفد وفى الدائرة الثالثة فاز الوفد" ... but I don't see the text directly and there seems to be some mark-up error. It does seems like Mohammed Ali Taie is one of the winning candidates, but the sentence seems wrong, perhaps text from one line got mixed up with another. --Soman (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Al-Ahrar article from 1986 confirms he was a member of parliament. There is a photo of him as well in the article. --Soman (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in an article in Sabah al-Kheir, seemingly on the 2000 Egyptian election there is a mention of "... and there is Fawzia Taie, the wife of the engineer Mohamed Taie, the late deputy a few weeks ago, who intends to enter the battle on the fortieth day as well." ("وهناك فوزية طايع زوجة المهندس محمد طايع النائب الراحل منذ أسابيع التي تنوى دخول المعركة في الأربعين أيضا"). This book, p. 40 seems to confirm his membership in parliamentary housing committee, but snippet view makes getting full context. This book mentions him as an engineer and former MP ("مهندس محمد طايع - عضو مجلس الشعب السابق"). --Soman (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a purported photo of him in the deleted Arabic Wikipedia article that we could try to check if it matches the 1986 paper, but I can't tell if any of the photos in the 1986 paper match it. Here is the relevant section from the old Arabic Wikipedia article that seems to describe his political career, which I don't fully understand:

"فى عام 1984 عاد حزب الوفد الجديد الى الساحة السياسية من جديد وقررت الهيئة الوفدية خوض الانتخابات عام 1984 في كل دوائر الجمهورية وفى السويس قرر الحزب خوض الانتخابات بقائمة وجاء محمد على طايع على رأس القائمة لما يحظى به من تأييد وشعبية جارفة لدى أبناء سوهاج وكذلك بعض أبناء العصبيات الأخرى وأجريت الانتخابات في جو ديمقراطى حصل فيها الوفد على نسبة تقدر 58 عضو على مستوى الجمهورية وحصل الوفد على مقعد وحيد للفئات وهو مقعد المهندس / محمد على طايع . واستمر المجلس الى عام 1987 بعد أن صدر قرار جمهورى بحل المجلس بناءاً على حكم من المحكمة الدستورية بعدم دستوريته والعودة الى النظام الفردى ويعتبر هذا المجلس هو الاول في عهد الرئيس حسنى مبارك ويعتبر حل المجلس قبل استكمال دوره تأكيداً على حرص الرئيس مبارك على سيادة القانون واحترامه ."

Or, through Google Translate:

"In 1984, the New Wafd Party returned to the political arena again and the Wafdist body decided to run in the 1984 elections in all constituencies of the republic. In Suez, the party decided to run in the elections with a list and Mohamed Ali Taie came at the top of the list due to the overwhelming support and popularity he enjoyed among the people of Sohag as well as some members of other clans. The elections were held in a democratic atmosphere in which the Wafd obtained an estimated 58 members at the republic level and the Wafd obtained a single seat for the categories, which was the seat of Engineer Mohamed Ali Taie. The council continued until 1987 after a presidential decree was issued to dissolve the council based on a ruling by the Constitutional Court declaring it unconstitutional and returning to the individual system. This council is considered the first during the era of President Hosni Mubarak. The dissolution of the council before completing its term is considered an affirmation of President Mubarak's keenness on the rule of law and respect for it."

I.e. he ran for the Wafd and the article claims (against what a user above says) that the Wafd did obtain seats, he got specifically the "seat for the categories" (probably a mistranslation). It then says "the council" was dissolved based on a court ruling -- maybe the source of the confusion here is that he was a member of a political body which no longer exists? Mrfoogles (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I think it would be helpful if someone could summarize what the 1986 article says about him -- not speaking Arabic it's hard to make a decision at this AFD as I can't tell how thorough the source is. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 'council' that was dissolved following 1987 court ruling was the Majlis ash-Shaab ('Council of the People'), i.e. People's Assembly of Egypt. The photo in the 1986 article is the one to the left in the bottom row, it matches the photo found at marefa. --Soman (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - another source, here mentioned in a 1985 Jordanian newspaper article as being part of an Egyptian parliamentary delegation visiting Jordan. Here and here mentioned his role in parliament. --Soman (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - perhaps these sources could be added please and then maybe this article improves significantly with notability being demonstrated (WP:HEY)? Coldupnorth (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - AfD should not be judged based on the presence of sources in the article and AfDs should not be a process for clean-up of articles. See Wikipedia:Notability "Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." At this point it has in this discussion been manifested that there are multiple sources affirming that Tayea was an MP elected in 1984 (and thus passes WP:NPOL by default), which should suffice to close this AfD process. --Soman (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn as third party sources have actually been provided. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

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

Declined prod. 1 of the added sources appears to be a database [2]. I downloaded the other source and it is a mention of 1 paragraph in a 600+ page document. I don't think that is SIGCOV. and we need SIGCOV in multiple sources to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Brazil. LibStar (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Athletics at the 1996 Summer Olympics – Men's 5000 metres – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop the madness, there have been over 75 opened PRODs / AfDs this month over non-American Olympic athletes, and each takes significant effort to find sources for with no evidence the nominator has done a WP:BEFORE. I added several sources to the article constituting SIGCOV, such as "São Silvestre caipira atrai elite das ruas brasileiras". Folha de Sao Paulo (in Portuguese). 23 December 2002. Retrieved 28 February 2025. --Habst (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NSOFT; no indication that this language received any attention from businesses or researchers. The Business Standard source in the article is PR, and the other nominally independent source isn't about M#. A general search didn't find any coverage. Unrelated to a language from Microsoft's Midori project, codenamed M#. Deproded with edit summary "has notable sources". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and United Kingdom. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Half of the listed sources are WP:PRIMARY, and three out of the four sources are dead links. The remaining source does not seem independent from the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Madeleine (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Note. Found a few sources, I think:

- https://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/microsoft-s-midori-os-may-have-spawned-a-new-programming-language-1211300
- https://web.archive.org/web/20130310015719/http://business-reporter.co.uk/2012/11/the-end-of-offshoring/#:~:text=Building%20applications%20using%20traditional%20tools,NET%20code

Fryedk (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fryedk: The first source is about an entirely unrelated language, and the second source is just marketing material as I stated in the nomination (I mistakenly said Business Standard instead of Business Reporter). It was published as a supplement directly by parent company Lyonsdown, and looking at some other supplements in the Business Reporter ([3], [4]) it is clear that their intent is promotional. As stated here, Lyonsdown is the UK's leading publisher of special interest reports. Distributed with major national newspapers, each of our publications reaches an average of 1.5 million people.* We can reach your audience and raise your profile. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you, perhaps the article should be instead rewritten about this language lol. Fryedk (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article about a documentary film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about them, such as reviews by professional film critics and production coverage -- but the only attempt at a notability claim here is that it won an award at a minor film festival that isn't prominent enough to render its awards into instant notability freebies in the absence of proper third-party sourcing, while the only "references" that have ever been present in the article were the filmmakers' self-published website about themselves and the self-published website of the minor film festival, both primary sources that do not constitute support for notability at all (and also had to be removed as they were both dead links).
Meanwhile, searches of both Google and ProQuest failed to turn up anything better, finding only directory entries and Q&A interviews in which the filmmakers are talking about themselves in the first person rather than GNG-building coverage. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero references. A search did not find any that sufficiently establish WP:GNG. Madeleine (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not passed on WP:GNG. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom and does not pass WP: GNG. Gauravs 51 (talk)

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

2nd Nomination. First AfD resulted in DELETE; strictly promotional. Page was re-created with supposed "new sources". However, all FOOTNOTES are primary and promotional. No "new" sources pass notability claim or RS requirement. Fanfare reference only lists BLP's self-generated biography. Cannot find any online listings for Living Music Journal or to any of BLP'S writing. Cannot find reference content for Choir and Organ to be used for RS. Entry in Oxford Music Online is merely BLP's personal biography contributed by subscribed user; as is with all biographies. Link to "Search for 'Carson Cooman' in The Oxford Dictionary of Music and the Oxford Companion to Music" renders nothing. No awards, no reviews, no major publications. 1st AfD was correct. Maineartists (talk) 17:48, 1 February 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 February 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music and Bands and musicians. Maineartists (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Author) Keep An entry in OMO is a major third-party music encyclopedia covering the artist. If a major music encyclopedia covers a topic, that is the definition of being encyclopedic, and so we should cover it too. Chubbles (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT An entry in OMO is no longer relevant if and when that is the only claim for notability. Once again: OMO is user and subscriber generated now and merely copies from BLPs primary sources bios. There is nothing "covering the artist" in the OMO entry that is independent or would suggest third-party coverage to warrant an entire article on this BLP at WP. More toward the point, OMO does not list numerous well known composers listed at WP simply because a user / subscriber has yet to upload the information. OMO has quickly become a "Who's Who". If this is all that is allowing BLP to have an article at WP, the standards for even GNG have dropped considerably. As an article, there is not one content claim that meets any notability criteria. If the OMO is the only notable claim to fame and that is the only thing the BLP is notable for, then it becomes a circular argument. Where are the performances? Where are the recordings? Where are the reviews? Aside from OMO, where is any third-party independent coverage? Maineartists (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there documentation, here or elsewhere, that OMO has become a UGC site? This was intended to be an updated mirror of The New Grove, the definitive English-language encyclopedia of music, and if its inclusion policies have changed, this should be widely promulgated on music project pages, because Grove forms the backbone of a huge amount of the content of this project (in fact, WP:MET is a straight-on attempt to make sure everything in Grove has an entry here.) Certainly, if Cooman is in the paper Grove, that is definitively encyclopedic. Chubbles (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reference in the article states: "The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd edition". This "printed" edition was published in 2001 in 29 volumes: [5]. This date far precedes any accomplishments or even career dates related to the BLP. No volume is referenced, nor page number. I am suspicious of the claim in general. I suspect it was added like this to pass notability claim after the first AfD result. In addition, absolutely no relevant information has been gleaned from this "encyclopedia" to back the content in this BLP article. At present, it would be the only source for the entire page. That is not enough to build an article or prove notability. Your argument is in defense regarding WP policy for one criteria and is not in anyway directly discussing the overwhelming problems regarding the article & BLP. Once again, the guidelines for criteria states: "may" qualify. There is a very definitive reasoning that this one criteria is not strong enough for notability, since the article was a result of delete and nothing has been added except 6 primary sources directly related to the BLP. You are arguing policy, not looking at the article and BLP and history overall. So the BLP is in the online version. There is absolutely nothing else online that can be found to back any claim as a source for content for an article here at WP. Even the first 4 lines of the online Grove biography is so personal that 1. The submitting editor either knows the BLP or 2. Took the information directly from a primary source related to the BLP. One still needs additional secondary sources to back any claim even stated within this "encyclopedia". Maineartists (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute. I just realized: You re-created this article? What exactly were the new sources? Did you have access to the printed 2001 2nd edition version when you created this article? or the Choir and Organ issue pg 15-17? The other "sources" are primary; and the article you created is not notable. And looking at the History Summary mess, it is right back to where it was when it was first placed for AfD; with obvious COI adding primary images and reinstating primary sources and content, [6], [7], [8]. You recreated a deleted article based on what reasoning? The OMO entry??? Maineartists (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did, although I had forgotten that when I first !voted; I have indicated my authorship in the !vote now. I used OMO, which I had access to in 2017 and no longer do; I worked under the reasonable presumption that OMO's articles are vetted by professional musicologists in the same way that the print version was. If that is not the case, there should be a centralized discussion about how to handle it (something akin to the discussion about Allmovie, though I hope the outcome is different). There's not necessarily anything untoward about a third party using a musician's own website as a source; that's, in fact, quite reasonable for uncontroversial facts about the musician, and I have seen Grove do that with some jazz musicians as well without thinking it askance in any way. The promo puff added by COI editors can and should be stripped (I haven't babysat this article very closely), but that doesn't change the fact that, with independent encyclopedic attention, this is an encyclopedic topic (which is why I re-created the article). Chubbles (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"There's not necessarily anything untoward about a third party using a musician's own website as a source; that's, in fact, quite reasonable for uncontroversial facts about the musician." That is completely false when it comes to BLPs and WP policy. A BLP can put whatever they want in their own bios from date & place of birth to awards and premieres. WP will not allow even birth dates i.e. Roisin Conaty without a proper RS. The fact that (once again) the only RS - supposedly - for this particular BLP is the OMO, has absolutely nothing to do with encyclopedia attention warranting inclusion. Cooman has stated on his own personal websites and associated biographies that he has contributed to hundreds or recording projects and albums, written thousands of compositions, which have had numerous if not countless premieres world wide, and his (quote) "organ performances can be heard on a number of CD releases and more than 2,000 recordings available online" with "over 300 new compositions by more than 100 international composers have been written for him." My questions to you is: where? With such proficiency, with such an impressive and vast amount of music being produced all over the world and especially here in America, where is all the coverage? Where are the 2000 recordings? Where are the reviews? Where are all the sources? So yes, it is nonsensical to say that third parties can use a musician's own website as a source.

You keep skirting the issues at hand and creating another circular defense. The article with the OMO would not exist. That does not warrant notability. Notability criteria at Grove is completely different than WP presently. The discussion here is about the article on Carson Cooman; not about whether OMO entries should be automatically included at WP without question. Maineartists (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, placing all these citations under the guise of FOOTNOTES does not relieve them of their direct primary association. They are not being used in the correct manner as proposed in WP:FOOTNOTES since no reliable source has been establish for the initial content. Every single one of them need to be removed from the article. Leaving only the 4-line OMO for reference (unless another editor can access the site), and no one has yet to prove the printed 2001 edition; nor the Organ and Choir 2007 publication. I am going to do a hard scrub, leaving only the OMO for reference and then we can evaluate the article on its standing merits. Maineartists (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW. Since you re-created this article, where did you get the BLP's full name: Carson Pierce Cooman? I cannot find any independent secondary RS to back this claim. Curious. Maineartists (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem with the article being stripped of content added by COI editors, but promotional activity is (completely!) independent of notability, and so the only real issue I see here is whether there is some reason to believe that either the standards of OMO have deteriorated in general (and I'm not sure that you're in fact arguing this is the case) or that it has lapsed in its inclusion of this article specifically (which appears to be your primary issue). I believed that the artist's inclusion in the online successor to The New Grove was sufficient in itself to demonstrate encyclopedic worth, because it is an encyclopedia. It seems frankly silly on its face for us to have more stringent inclusion requirements than other encyclopedias do, and I defer to the expertise of published subject-matter experts in specific fields, including music - who, in this case, found Cooman worthy of note. I no longer have OMO available to me; in 2017 I had access to a major university library and now I do not, and so I can't see the article anymore, but I'm sure someone on the site can get the text. If it's based partly on information contained in Cooman's online biography, I see this as an issue if it regurgitates the composer's own self-praise or takes at face value outlandish statements about himself, but not, for instance, for the purposes of determining basic information like where he went to school or for compiling a list of recordings or compositions. Context matters in that case, and I think it is still safe to presume that OMO editors are sufficiently trained in source evaluation to vet the statements on the website, unless it is obvious that they have failed to do so. People lie about these things, I recognize, and it is incumbent upon OMO to check on that, but I don't have a credible implication that they didn't do so. (Again, without the article in front of me, I can't say for sure one way or the other, but I don't remember it being egregious insofar as I search my dim memory of life in 2017.) I do not recall exactly where I got his middle name came from, but it is attested elsewhere. Chubbles (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I must be widely connected, because the subject and I have about 6 friends in common including a church organist who is an ex-boyfriend. The American Guild of Organists is a very small world. He's a composer in residence at Harvard Memorial Church, which may or may not count towards WP:PROF. As usual in these cases, no !vote. Bearian (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct: it does not count toward WP:PROF. Unless there is an accredited title not associated with the subject found within a source detailed by the institution / organization, it is merely a self-promotional title. AGO and ex-boyfriends are not enough either. Maineartists (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT All 6 FOOTNOTES (which are used as references within the article) are direct primary RS. Regardless of this AfD, they must be removed along with its content. Leaving only 2 references, one that is not referenced and cannot be accessed for content entry unless one has the actual magazine edition from 2007, and the second: access to the printed OMO, since the online version only gives 4 sentences about early life and not career. It is also not referenced within the article. Continuous RS biographies are not enough for notability.

In addition, WP:MUSICBIO states: "Musicians ... may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria." The operative word here is may. "... the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials." There are no RS to be found. Also, fails WP:COMPOSER to meet criteria. Maineartists (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found coverage in newspapers: from 1997 [9], [10], and from 1998 [11] (same publication, same writer, so counts as one source). However, Maineartists, you may be interested to note that this composer was indeed active before 2001, though I have not checked whether he is included in the 2001 source you mention. I also found a review of a concert that includes a description both of a carol he wrote, and his organ playing [12]. This interview with another organist [13] says that he has recorded an album of Cooman's work, and Cooman has recorded 6 or 8 volumes (as of 2013). I will try finding the names of those recordings and his significant compositions (information which surely should be in the article) so I can then search for reviews of them. I'd also note that there are some churches (particularly cathedrals and churches associated with universities) where the position of organist/director of music is notable - whether that applies to Harvard Memorial Church, I don't know. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was a long discussion above about if OMO is a suitable source, I think that this bio (which you can see if you have access to Wikipedia Library) is written by an expert, Walter Simmons [14]. I also found a 10 page article written about him by Jonathon B Hall in The Organ (You can see that there is an article here [15] but not read it). I think these are enough to be worthy of WP:GNG Moritoriko (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was accidentally detranscluded between February 8 and now due to a botched relisting. Let's try again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Moritoriko A bio at OMO has nothing to do with Simmons being an "expert"; since the biographies are merely taken from pre-existing content from the subject themselves based on primary sources found online. Furthermore, one only needs to search both names to realize the two know each other and are supporters and proponents of each other. Cooman dedicates works to Simmons, Simmons reviews Coomans works. [16], [17], [18]. Regardless, as an above editor pointed out, since no one can access the entry, if it merely re-states what the BLP already promotes in their own biographies online, then it cannot be used here since most is promotional and cannot be proven without secondary RS (thousands of compositions, hundreds of recordings, etc). Second, even the Organ article mentioned is moot since without access and is worthless for writing a good article at WP. (Unless you have a means of accessing it that I could not find?) It may aid in gaining notable claim at the GNG level; but how many other organists have had an article in every issue of this magazine since it's founding in 1921? Does that mean they all deserve articles here at WP? Hardly. All I've said from the beginning is: where is all the RS coverage for someone supposedly so notable to render an OMO entry (although the connection with Simmons might be the reason) with thousands of compositions, thousands of recordings, etc. It has to be easier than this to find secondary RS to back content for a notable article on this BLP. Even if the OMO does allow GNG notability; without access to that, or any of these other firewall / paid sources, everything else is primary and the article will be very limited in its content. Maineartists (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Through the Wikipedia Library program, editors can access both the OMO and the Organ article, I apologize I wasn't clearer in stating that. (If you want to see them then I might be able to email you copies). The OMO bio also has a bibliography which lists the 3 page article that you can see here [[19] Choir & Organ], I haven't found access to this one however. So far it seems that there are 2 substantial articles in subject matter magazines, C&O is even a British publication so that speaks to international recognition.

How do you know how Simmons put together his bio of Cooman? The bit about being exposed to music from early childhood is probably from Cooman himself, but I think we can trust that Simmons knows about his education at Harvard and Carnegie Mellon. And do you not think those reviews by Simmons constitutes some of the secondary RS that you are looking for?

At this point it sounds like you have accepted that Cooman has enough notability for an article, but you are concerned about sourcing information for a BLP? Am I understanding correctly? Moritoriko (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have started adding info and sources to the article. I would say that he meets WP:NMUSIC, though I am finding that a little confusing. There are multiple albums of his music released on one of the more important independent labels, per WP:MUSICBIO #5. However, he didn't play his compositions himself on those albums, and WP:COMPOSER doesn't mention recordings. But surely having multiple albums dedicated to his work released by some of the more important independent labels counts. I will continue looking for and adding info and sources, and the opinions of reviewers, (so please don't remove as yet uncited info). RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT RebeccaGreen Yes, I saw this entry. Some of these recordings are "independent releases" (i.e. Convivium Records, etc). Regardless, discography is secondary to an article once a BLP has established notability. Thank you for continually attempting to find RS for this BLP. The case I am trying to make here is, despite the small GNG based on "OMO has an entry on this BLP so WP should too", Wikipedia still has an obligation to produce and create WP:GA as an independent encyclopedia and create a "GOOD ARTICLE" with "RELIABLE SOURCES". WP is not Oxford Music Online. Wikipedia has its own guidelines and policies and criteria separate from other "encyclopedia". This BLP has very little RS to create a "good article" at WP. Maineartists (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with the two sources I found? are those not independent or secondary enough? Moritoriko (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moritoriko Please read the above response. Maineartists (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing there regarding my questions. Moritoriko (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moritoriko, there is nothing wrong with them. I am now adding sources that appear when I click on the link at Find sources: TWL above - that is The Wikipedia Library. Of course, you can also add sources. I don't know if Maineartists has access to The Wikipedia Library - if they did, we might not be here. I'd also note that OMO is a tertiary source, and per WP:PSTS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." We certainly have independent, reliable secondary sources, and can use the tertiary source as well. We have no obligation to write a WP:GA - currently 0.75% of WP articles have that status, and WP would be much smaller and poorer if the other 99.25% of articles were deleted. Any article can be improved over time, and as long as it demonstrates the subject's notability and meets WP's policies, there is no reason to delete. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

omg, thank you for telling me what TWL link did. I have access to it but I've never clicked that link... it looked scaaaary xD (I'll add the source I mentioned above if you haven't already) Moritoriko (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The very first sentence of the very first of the project's Five Pillars says "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias..." (emphasis added). If Oxford Music Online isn't a specialized encyclopedia I don't know what is. And it's not just any specialized encyclopedia, it is The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians which looks to be a majorlyserious work and well known in its field too, I believe. And it's published by Oxford University Press. What's not to like. If it was public domain, I could certainly see a case for bringing the whole thing into the Wikipedia en masse, as has been done for some other specialized data collections I believe (geography, biology).

If Grove is self-written garbage rife with corrupt log-rolling, that's an important data point. But not necessarily a deal-killer: it's still a specialized encyclopedia, just a crummy one. But a lot of sources are crummy, the question that matters is, is it reliable? Does Grove have fact checking? How confident are we that all the facts in Cooman's entry are true? I wouldn't think that Oxford University Press's business model includes putting out sloppy work that hasn't been vetted. But maybe. But I'm going to assume that Grove meets our reliability standards. We know it's notable. We know it's a specialized encyclopedia. I'm not seeing a reason not to consider it valid.

We have scores of thousands of articles on obscure fungus species and tiny hamlets etc. that don't come close to meeting the WP:GNG, because WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA trumps that. Don't see why Grove is different. Anyway, the guy's Grove entry alone is enough to support the article. In addition we have all these other sources. Herostratus (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge with George Washington Revolutionaries until sufficient independent sourcing is found, as there is no inherent notability for college sports teams. Article was already moved back to mainspace by creator. JTtheOG (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, and Washington, D.C.. JTtheOG (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

AI-generated article with fake sources; obviously created to promote Toad Sweat which was also created by the same editor and is now up for deletion. Could plausibly be G11'd but I brought it here just in case, and for consistency with WP:Articles for deletion/Toad Sweat. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. AI generated junk with fake references, and the one that isn't fake doesn't lend notability. Honestly, this should have been a PROD. nf utvol (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not always meaningful to PROD, nf utvol. This would be a case in point, since when I PRODDED the sister article Toad Sweat, created by the same user the day before, the creator promptly removed the prod without any attempt to improve the article. I would expect the same action here. I believe rather it should have been a speedy. But now that it's here, the AFD may as well run, since that will make it harder to repeatedly recreate it. Bishonen | tålk 20:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]
I see that now, oh well...sounds like that user is on their way to a possible ban for COI editing anyway. nf utvol (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page was not intended for publication. It is intended to put a site on for some university students to work on to propose page for publication. Is there any manner in which the initial draft may be put in draft form for the students to work on for their class project? TJGuiton (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: TJGuiton (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

@TJGuiton: This article is not acceptable even in draft form. If it had been created as a draft, it might still be deleted as spam. Everything you write on Wikipedia is "published" whether it's in mainspace or in draft form, and promotion is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia.

Please explain your relationship to the university and the class professor/lecturer/students. It is a very bad idea to ask students to write an article about a specific topic, especially one where you have a conflict of interest. From a brief search, it is unlikely that this topic is sufficiently notable for any article to be written.

Finally, you still have not formally disclosed your conflict of interest with Toad Sweat. You are required to make a paid editing declaration as described on WP:PAID if you make any money from Toad Sweat, regardless of whether you were asked to edit Wikipedia. Because of your conflict of interest, you should only be submitting drafts through WP:Articles for creation instead of directly creating articles in mainspace. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How can you tell this is AI slop? What are the malformed fingers of text AI? (Im not trying to defend this, I'm trying to learn). Moritoriko (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion of fake sources is a big tell. The article also has a generally essay-like and promotional tone, which is common for unspecialized AIs. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional, fake references. Bishonen | tålk 20:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]
It was a draft quickly posted for the university students to work on and it was never intended to be made public. Please share a manner for them to work on draft pages prior to publication yet allow them to work as a team on a page. It was never intended that the crap draft would be posted for public consumption. It was understood that there was a "chalkboard" or equivalent where drafts could be worked on before being posted widely on the main page of Wikipedia. TJGuiton (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatantly AI-generated promotional slop. Madeleine (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just advertising. TBAN in sight. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Clearly AI generated and, as said above, promotional FarmerUpbeat (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, AI slop with fake references —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 04:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As stated to Bishonen, it was a draft quickly posted for the university students to work on and it was never intended to be made public. Please share a manner for them to work on draft pages prior to publication yet allow them to work as a team on a page. It was never intended that the crap draft would be posted for public consumption. It was understood that there was a "chalkboard" or equivalent where drafts could be worked on before being posted widely on the main page of Wikipedia. Thank you in advance. TJGuiton (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TJGuiton: If you want something posted on the main page, first you have to make it a WP:GA (normally, sometimes an article can be 5x expanded for criteria to be met), then shortly after nominate it at WP:DYKCNN. And that's just for a fun fact. If you want it to be the big main listed article, you have to make it a WP:FA, then subject it to review at WP:TFAR. Worgisbor (Talking's fun!) 20:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, as pythoncoder and Xxanthippe state, this is effectively AI slop, far too common on the English Wikipedia nowadays.Plasticwonder (talk) 04:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles not written by humans with fabricated references should not be retained on Wikipedia. cyberdog958^Talk 06:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is nothing but AI slop. I agree with Cyberdog about this. 208.56.148.137 (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sourced to primary sources and routine coverage. Not notable. Princess of Ara 18:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Economics, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Article might be relivant in future, there are few details to look up to per references. Kingsize8 (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 23:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CRYSTAL. Articles that might be relevant in the future are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Madeleine (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG per lack of significant coverage in independent sources. Madeleine (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources insufficient to establish WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can find about two sources on the web about the political organization, everything else is general data from PAC websites. I also cannot find much of anything about a potential Mark Warner run in 2008, something this was a part of. Articles sources are not RS Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The main "Draft Mark Warner" organization doesn't meet WP:NORG. There's coverage in a book, [20], but that's mostly an interview. Can't find anything else other than some brief mentions, e.g. [21]. I can't find any coverage of "Young Americans for Warner". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most of these many draft XYZ for president movements are not notable. Not casting aspersions on anyone, but they're often created by a political consultant trying to create work for themselves, a gadfly with too much time and money on his hands, and/or a fan of the politician who is one step ahead of a restraining order. I can recall two gay men from the New York metropolitan region who have done this sort of thing before. Bearian (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unreferenced film article. The one citation is to a generic website page; possibly as a result of link rot. It was a primary source anyway. Not clear this film passes WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. As a Lugnuts created stub this could have been deleted through WP:PROD after the outcome at WP:ARBCOM, but I decided to take it here instead in case the community thinks it is worth rescuing. 4meter4 (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and improve with sources from the corresponding article in Spanish for a start. -Mushy Yank. 21:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 21:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient sources added to show potential notability. Giant Snowman 09:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 19:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to Presidential elections in Singapore. ^Complex/_Rational 17:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is just a hollowed-out copy of 2029 Singaporean presidential election. It's a little too early to have an article on this subject, since candidates aren't announcing and no coverage has started. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. mikeblas (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources appear to cover the 2029 election and just copy paste from the other article. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Presidential elections in Singapore. It is just WP:TOOSOON to have a standalone article on a future election. It could be draftified as an alternative if preferred, as the article is going to be necessary and more accurate someday regardless. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 23:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Presidential elections in Singapore. No significant coverage available based on the current status. Rimesodom (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Presidential elections in Singapore. WP:TOOSOON for that to happen, for an event happening four years later, unlike those of the 2028 United States presidential election. I agree on everyone's consensus per Sophisticatedevening and Rimesodom as well. Sculture65 (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Just wait for around 2027 or 2028 when the election draws close, just this date will do, and that's where the fun begins (the same wise was for changes in constitution etc.), again just wait for around that date. Sculture65 (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is what appears to be a promotional article, with very questionable sources ranging from blogs to an Amazon listing. Does not appear to pass WP:NAUTHOR, nor WP:MUSICBIO. When conducting a before search, I've had no luck coming up with anything even remotely approaching WP:SIGCOV. Kylemahar902 (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Texas. Kylemahar902 (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clear paid-for WP:ADMASQ for a non-notable motivational speaker. No pass on any WP:NBIO SNGs, and I only see one source that might be WP:SIGCOV, but it appears non-independent given the promotional material that it includes. (Plus, seen in today's light the headline "From Diddy dreams to transforming teens" is quite unfortunate.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, and Health and fitness. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article includes verifiable claims supported by reliable sources. While improvements can always be made, Wikipedia is a work in progress, and deletion should not be the first course of action when an article meets basic inclusion criteria. Additionally, the subject's notability may continue to grow, allowing for further development of the article over time. Emirdy (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer would note that the above user is the paid editor who created this article. Emirdy, could you please point to the reliable sources in this article? Thanks. Kylemahar902 (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admitting that the subject's notability may continue to grow is another way of admitting that this is WP:TOOSOON. (FWIW, this comment reads as WP:AIGENERATED.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Distinctly promotional (though short of being outright spam) & no evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. Checking references, I found citations to promotional websites, an interview with Taylor, sites selling his books, at least one reference to a page which doesn't even mention him, a dead link ... etc ... Not a single one that I saw went anywhere towards showing notability in Wikipedia's terms. JBW (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's becoming clear that while the article has some coverage, as it is right now is WP:TOOSOON and it lacks the widespread secondary and independent coverage that would generally qualify for notability (as others have already pointed out). Emirdy's comment demonstrates WP:CRYSTALBALL. GuardianH 16:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify/delete The article should have never been moved to the article space by the COI editor. That alone goes against WP:COIEDIT. – The Grid (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, clearly promotional per the abysmal references. Madeleine (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. the subject still needs to establish notability. Promotional content. Gauravs 51 (talk)

Comment: Because I'm friends of friends with the subject, I won't !vote. I have spoken recently at a Wikimedia event in Brooklyn, ironically since my friend and the subject both live there, about my concerns with the unsolicited offer of paid editing. Bearian (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pretty clear-cut case of WP:TRUMPCRUFT. Fails WP:CRYSTAL, no indication that this will actually be pursued. E_F⁵ 14:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Economic citizenship or something similar. This is not a 'clear cut' case of WP:TRUMPCRUFT , this is legitimate proposed policy afaik, but i would agree it doesn't warrant its own article. Braedencapaul (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to "Gold Card (proposal)" This surmounts CRYSTAL as the article is about a policy proposal which does actually exist, not a residence permit that does not (see other non-CRYSTAL articles about policy proposals such as Proposed United States acquisition of Greenland, Proposals for new Australian states, Proposals for a European Super League in association football, etc.). However, the title needs to be modified to match the text of the article. Beyond that, sufficient WP:RS to pass WP:N. Worst case scenario we should wait two weeks and evaluate then to see if it passes WP:10YT based on sustained coverage or implementation. Chetsford (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fine with this but would still prefer a better disambiguation (proposed residence permit)? absolutely this one will require future re-evaluation, but at this point that would be fine. Braedencapaul (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: TOOSOON. Honestly Trump says all kind of things... We've been waiting for tariffs in Canada "shortly" or "very soon" for three months now. I'd take anything he says with a grain of salt, and this is no different. If/when it becomes a thing, we can revisit. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
think this was what he was talking about with WP:TRUMPCRUFT, but as noted above, if the article is written about the subject as a "policy proposal" the speed of implementation isn't really relevant to its notability. Braedencapaul (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Braedencapaul, that's exactly what I mean. Trump says things all the time, most of which don't actually come to fruition. I would support having an article once this is actually implemented, but for now we have no way of knowing if this is just another thing he's said. — E_F⁵ 14:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I would support having an article once this is actually implemented, but for now we have no way of knowing if this is just another thing he's said" We don't need to know. If there is WP:SIGCOV of a policy proposal there is no obligation upon us to predict whether or not it will ultimately be successful before we chronicle it (i.e. we don't have to wait for the U.S. to "annex" Greenland to create Proposed United States acquisition of Greenland or for The Green New Deal to pass before we create an article on it). TRUMPCRUFT is an essay, not a policy and not a guideline. For better or worse, Trumps says a lot of things and RS report heavily on them to such a degree that they become fixtures of discussion and ideation, thereby cresting our minimal SIGCOV threshold. It would be one thing if this were reported on one day and then died, but there has been sustained coverage over the better part of the last week with new coverage being enterprised just in the last 24 hours by CNBC [22], Axios [23] and the Associated Press [24]. Chetsford (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is important information regardless of whether it has been implemented as policy. It was stated by trump that this “gold card,” was going to replace the existing green card. It’s important to document all of the random things that his administration says they’re going to do, just to keep track. This proposal is to increase the price of citizenship from 1 million to five, and the wording indicates to me that it’s also is a potential creation of a tax haven in the USA, for wealthy people from other countries to stash income made in other countries, tax free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahhumphrieslepage (talk • contribs) 20:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per Oaktree b. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly trumpcruft. If this actually comes to fruition it can be re-written. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trumpcruft. I'm getting annoyed with how many trump articles there are, like Donald Trump and handshakes. Like what?? lol

Coulomb1 (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal was mentioned in the state of the union, so I find it hard to understand the categorizing of it as "another thing trump will probably never actually do" Braedencapaul (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And who was the person who said it at the SoTU? He lied several times during his address, what makes this a truth? E_F⁵ 20:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that we landed on the moon does not make an article about moon landing conspiracy theories not notable. Braedencapaul (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is terribly combinative actually, sorry. In a more clearheaded way: I do not believe that just because trump has a tendency to lie about proposed policies, we shouldn't have articles about any of them. This one seems fairly likely to be implemented, and based on its continuous coverage, and the fact that he's mentioned it multiple times now, including in the state of the union, seems to support this. Braedencapaul (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Another trumpcruft . Gauravs 51 (talk)
Delete the usual WP:TRUMPCRUFT jolielover♥talk 10:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 17:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable self-published book. I redirected it to the author (of dubious notability as well), but was reverted. Sources are extremely local, and the sources from WSAZ and WDTV are identical anyway. Book has gotten no further attention at all[25], all we have are some "local person did something", similar to how such sources would describe the show of a local amateur theatre group or some other minor event or happening. Fram (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Business. Fram (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete support deletion for reasons outlined by Fram. Insufficient coverage to suggest that the book is notable. The article gives very little meaningful detail about the book, beyond that it is self-published and available for purchase on Amazon.
Boredintheevening (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Herald Dispatch is the only "review" I can pull up. We're now three years later and nothing's been published, no book reviews, or any critical notice. Likely not passing notability for books and I don't see anything beyond a flash of publicity when it came out. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One of the citations was a duplicate of the other - it was the same story, just published in two slightly different websites. It looks like it's a case of news outlet and its affiliate using the same stories. I also removed the mention of this being available to purchase on Amazon. That's kind of a given of any book published in the US, that one could buy it somewhere and including it can be seen as promotional - I'm including this here to be transparent about the changes. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There just isn't any coverage out there that wasn't already in the article. This has received little coverage, all of which is very local as stated by Fram. Now local coverage can still be used, it just might not always be as strong as a non-local source. In this situation the coverage just isn't plentiful enough to establish notability. TBH, the author's article is of also dubious notability given that the sourcing on that is also almost entirely local. The only non-local coverage isn't about the person in question but rather a protest in which they were a participant. It's unclear if they were one of the people who planned the walkout or a participant who was interviewed - the sources I can access are kind of unclear. It's already covered in the school article as well - could use a few more lines about the walkout and lawsuit. It looks like that's the only thing he's received any sort of non-local coverage for. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree as per nom. If this book turns out to be a bestseller and if it can be a good yardstick of how a self-help inspirational life journey book should be something in the mould of Mark Manson's The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck, then it may warrant a standalone article in the future. But for now, it can be regarded as a typical case of WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. While I don't see much of value here, I don't want to dismiss local coverage, and the author potentially has at least minimal notability. For full disclosure, while I don't know any of the Felintons, this does relate to my local community and local events, and I'm familiar with regional media. But I would suggest potentially merging this into the author's article, noting of course that his article might also come up for AFD at some point. P Aculeius (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I put his article up for AFD. Ynsfial (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a self published book with very weak coverage after mutiple years. Ynsfial (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has three sources and they are all interviews of the author, which don't qualify for WP:NBOOK criterion #1: This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. When we remove those, there's nothing left for notability. Astaire (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to List of films about the Russo-Ukrainian War#Movies as a WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Student film which, apart from non-independent sources (university of student) only has gotten some attention in the local newspaper. Claim about being available on a streaming service could not be verified, the link gives a 404 error and searching for title or director gives no results. A redirect to the director may be an alternative, unclear whether they are notable either. Fram (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Russia, and Ukraine. Fram (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The film has ambitious screenplay but the sources to prove the WP:GNG is falling short of the bare minimum as per the nom Fram. I also had a quick Google search and it only had handful of sources to support the claim including IMDb and Marshall University. Apart from these, I don't find any standout reliable sources as per the nom to verify the authenticity of the film by any measure with the bare minimum of at least details od principal photography and the filmmaking aspects. Abishe (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are only giving reasons to delete this, not to keep this, so why then the "weak keep"? Fram (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_films_about_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Movies: but not opposed to Keep if other users think the coverage is sufficient. Not opposed to a redirect to Samuel Felinton. [Might meet WP:DIRECTOR with Draft:The Death of Film but coverage is sparse.] -Mushy Yank. 15:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I normally side with Mushy Yank, but this just doesn't appear to be a notable film. The coverage here is entirely local and while local coverage can be usable for sourcing, it's not really a good sign of notability if no one outside of the director's home town has covered the film. To that end, I don't know that we should include it at the list page if it's not notable enough for its own article. The director is also of dubious notability, given that their coverage is almost entirely local. The only non-local coverage they have is for a walkout and it's not clear if he was actually a major player for it or if the news just picked him out as a good person to interview. TBH, looking at the edit history it seems like the editor has edited very heavily about the Felinton family, making me wonder if there is a COI here that has not been disclosed. There are some other edits, but they're either minor changes or are far outnumbered by the Felinton related ones. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible I'm mistaken, but Felinton just doesn't seem notable and the focus on them - and attempt to add them and their work to so many different articles, in one case before a draft article was even made live or established notability, is just concerning. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The editor's prior username points towards there being a very strong COI here, so I'm going to stand by my concerns that the editor is participating with a goal of adding the Felinton family, particularly Samuel Felinton, to Wikipedia. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something else to note here with redirecting - the film hasn't received any non-local coverage. Only two of the sources are independent of the director, the two articles by the Herald Dispatch. The others are all primary, as they are related to the director, as the film premiered at Marshall University. This doesn't really show how the film is so notable that we need to have mention of it somewhere. Also, keep in mind that Plex is kind of like Wikipedia in that anyone can upload media to it, so it's not exactly like Plex reached out specifically to the director to distribute the film.

The other issue here is that I'm always kind of leery about using "redirect to (article)" as a way to preserve mention of something on Wikipedia. Sometimes you have cases where a topic is of obvious importance but fails notability guidelines - meaning that it should be mentioned somewhere. But in the vast majority of cases (like this one) the topic isn't really all that notable. I'm just worried about the list becoming a repository for people to place any movie that has received a weak amount of coverage. Inclusion on a list should be limited to either those films that pass NFILM and have their own article, or have received coverage in some pretty major places (scholarly/academic articles and books).

In other words, I don't think this film is so major that it justifies mention on Wikipedia. If it goes on to gain coverage from non-local sources or (independent) academic/scholarly sources then sure - add it to the list page. But I think two local sources is just too little to justify including it on a list page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Largely agree with ReaderofthePack — the sources are pretty weak, especially in that they consist primarily of exclusively local or otherwise primary sources that have some sort of connection to the subject. GNG needs widespread coverage in independent secondary sources, which isn't the case here. GuardianH 16:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per @ReaderofthePack. Film does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Madeleine (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_films_about_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Movies per Mushy Yank. As an WP:ATD, that addresses its lack of coverage so far and places it in context. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable film with very weak sourcing by a student director that isn't notable. Ynsfial (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_films_about_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Movies or Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. No significant or indepth coverage and no multiple critical reviews. RangersRus (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Created in the wake of his death and kept once when notability standards were different. I find no evidence he was a notable businessman. He was quoted and had some notable clients, but neither confers notability to him. Star Mississippi 13:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Finance. Star Mississippi 13:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a non-notable individual and we're WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Don't see anything in the article to indicate any kind of notability. Canterbury Tail talk 17:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Florida, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Miniapolis 23:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ahh, yes, AfDs in the oughts, what fun, where rationales of "Keep because, well, umm, REASONS, okay?" were not only common, but celebrated in the era of headcount-over-policy. Nothing here would pass notability muster now. NOTMEMORIAL, BLP1E. Ravenswing 04:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I could see the possibility of a Death of Seth Tobias, but this article isn't that. StonyBrook _babble 08:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Seth Tobias is Notability-Qualified

I respectfully submit that Seth Tobias meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria. Contrary to claims that he was “created in the wake of his death” and is “not a notable businessman,” there is clear evidence of his pre‑death notability as well as extensive posthumous coverage—turning his passing into a moment in popular culture due to the public’s fascination with the details of his life and death.

1. Pre‑Death Coverage and Career Achievements

Regular CNBC Commentator

Tobias was a recurring guest on Squawk Box and Kudlow & Company, recognized as a respected financial commentator—not merely quoted once, but featured repeatedly as a hedge fund expert.

Regularly Reported on by Major Publications

Major publications also routinely turned to Tobias for his expert commentary on financial matters and covered his fund, Circle T. These articles note his opinions on market conditions and specific stocks, as well as the fact that he started his fund in 1996 with $4 million and, according to the Washington Post, grew it to $400 million by 2004, making him a rising star on Wall Street.^[1] Below are just a few examples from 1999–2007:

The Wall Street Journal:

WSJ Article (Oct, 1999)^[2]
WSJ Article (Dec, 2001)^[3]
WSJ Article (Mar, 2001)^[4]
WSJ Article (June 6, 2005)^[5]
WSJ Article (June 9, 2005)^[6]

LA Times:

LA Times Archive Article (May 3, 2002)^[7]
LA Times Archive Article (May 21, 2002)^[8]
LA Times Archive Article (Feb 17, 2004)^[9]

CNN Money:

CNN Money Article (Jan 13, 2003)^[10]
CNN Money Commentary (Dec 16, 2003)^[11]
CNN Money Article (Oct 9, 2002)^[12]
CNN Money Article (2002)^[13]
Money Magazine Archive (Dec 2000)^[14]
Money Magazine Archive (Jul 1998)^[15]

The Washington Post:

Washington Post Article (Aug 11, 2004)^[16]

The New York Times:

NYT Article (Mar 7, 2002)^[17]
NYT Archive Article (Mar, 2007)^[18]

The London Times:

The London Times Article (2005)^[19]

Barrons:

Barron’s Article (June, 2004^[20]

2. Extensive Posthumous Coverage and Cultural Impact

While increased attention after death is common for notable figures, it does not negate their pre‑death accomplishments. In Tobias’s case, his passing was covered extensively by major publications, reflecting both ongoing public interest and turning his death into a moment in popular culture due to widespread fascination with the personal details of his life and demise. For example:

The New York Times – Published multiple separate articles on his death, including:

Oh, Mama—Tobias Saga Goes Supernatural (Jan 9, 2008)^[21]
Article from February 12, 2008^[22]
A case of fast money and even faster living (Dec 4, 2007)^[23]
A Lurid Aftermath to a Hedge Fund Manager’s Life (Dec 4, 2007)^[24]

Reuters – Offered comprehensive reporting on his career and on the events surrounding his death.

Reuters – Hedge Fund Manager Tobias Found Dead in Florida^[25]

New York Magazine - Notably, New York Magazine produced 11 separate articles (I did not feel it was necessary to list them all here) about his death, underscoring the extensive public fascination and cultural impact of his passing. One feature, titled “The Sordid Death of Hedge-Funder Seth Tobias,” further highlights this point.

NY Magazine – The Sordid Death of Hedge-Funder Seth Tobias^[26]

Business Insider (2008)- An article noted that CNBC’s extensive on-air discussions, investigations, and interviews regarding Tobias’s death were so pervasive that they essentially rendered the TV special redundant—underscoring that his death was widely publicized and continuously discussed.

Business Insider Article (2008)^[27]

Additional Outlets - The Independent, ABC News, Bloomberg, Los Angeles Times, and others also contributed to the extensive discourse surrounding his death.^[28]

Furthermore, CNBC produced a TV special that illustrates the sustained public interest in his life and work:

CNBC Presents: For the Love of Money: The Death of Seth Tobias^[29]
IMDB Listing for the TV Special^[30]

3. Notability Before and After Death

It is important to emphasize that Seth Tobias was considered notable before his death, as demonstrated by his coverage in CNN Money, The New York Times, Barron’s, the LA Times, The London Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the additional sources cited above—as well as his regular appearances on CNBC. The increased attention following his death—while adding to the overall body of coverage—does not transform the article into merely a memorial. Instead, it reinforces his lasting impact and confirms that his contributions were significant and widely acknowledged during his lifetime. Becoming more notable after death does not negate his established notability; it only highlights the continued public and media interest in his life and work.

Conclusion

The pre‑death articles from CNN Money, The New York Times, Barron’s, the LA Times, The London Times, and The Wall Street Journal—along with additional sources showing that major publications turned to his expert opinion—demonstrate thatInsanityclown1 (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC) Seth Tobias was a prominent hedge fund manager and a trusted media commentator. The extensive and repeated coverage of his death by internationally recognized publications—including The New York Times, The London Times, Reuters, New York Magazine (with its 11 separate articles), Business Insider, and others—further reinforces his lasting impact on the financial world and his moment in popular culture. Increased posthumous attention does not diminish his established notability; rather, it confirms that his achievements and influence were significant both during his lifetime and beyond.[reply]

Sorry for the long response, I just wanted to include all relevant evidence and reference the other reasons provided to delete. Thank you for reviewing this evidence. I look forward to seeing your opinions. 27SSmosa (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)27SSmosa[reply]

References

Thank you @27SSmosa. Can you please let us know how you came to hear of this discussion? Star Mississippi 18:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I have to say I find it somewhat curious that a new user has found their way to a random hedge fund manager's AfD page.Insanityclown1 (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... or that said first-time user is so heavily invested in it hanging around. Ravenswing 09:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to List of football clubs in Palau as a WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Two sources with a passing mention and probably not redirect per confusing name. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the previous discussion, none of those sources that were mentioned are notable, all blogs and the one Portuguese source that mentions it is a mild passing mention. The top-level league of Palau is essentially a recreational league, with the teams seemingly not having any true organization and structure. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirect - Although WP:FOOTYN says [t]eams that have played in ... the national tier(s) of the league structure in countries where no cup exists ... generally meet WP:GNG criteria, I still feel we must perform due diligence to ensure that WP:GNG is met, which I do not feel is the case. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote per GiantSnowman below. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Firstly a confusing name with Mount Everest and the club is not notable in the present context. Can be made with changed name after notability established. Gauravs 51 (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of football clubs in Palau Giant Snowman 09:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GiantSnowman. The club's name can be confused with Mount Everest. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Simply because I have serious doubts that anyone who puts "Mount Everest Nepal" in the search bar is looking for a football club in Palau. Svartner (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

No single sources meets NCORP; routine not reliable and deep media sources; not notable company by its own Taking off shortly (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, India, United Kingdom, and Illinois. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 10:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found [26] and [27], Which are significant references from reliable resources. This company meets WP:NCORP. I can also see the page is reviewed by Klbrain and he stated on creator's talk page "Thanks for creating this page for a company, which has independent coverage focussing on the company which has drugs in clinical use." Bakhtar40 (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm surprised to see the above keep vote seriously considering this link as meeting WP:NCORP: [28]. Let's analyze this source:

Fails to Establish Significant Coverage

The article is primarily an announcement about a licensing agreement between **Dr. Reddy’s** and **Pharmazz** regarding the distribution of Centhaquine in India.
There is **no in-depth analysis** or **independent investigative reporting** about Pharmazz as a company.

Lack of Independent and Substantial Coverage

The article **relies on company statements** and does not offer a third-party evaluation of Pharmazz’s impact, financial standing, or industry significance.
The primary quotes come from **company executives** (Dr. Reddy’s and Pharmazz), suggesting that the content is largely derived from **press releases** rather than independent reporting.

Focuses on a Product, Not the Company’s Notability

The coverage is about the **drug Centhaquine**, not Pharmazz as a notable entity.
WP:NCORP requires **substantial coverage of the company itself**, not just its product deals.

This source is a **routine business announcement** and does **not** provide the depth of coverage required to establish notability under WP:NCORP. 71.167.18.238 (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Considering to close as no consensus, given the lack of participation. But another relist wouldn't hurt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 12:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources are either routine announcements (i.e. churnalism) or are discussing the company's products, not the company. Ref. 1 in the article might possibly just clear the bar, but I don't know about the source's reliability. Altogether very weak sourcing. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's worth pointing out WP:SIRS review of the sources is somewhat weak. Very little in terms of independent sourcing and the main thing is that it lacks the widespread coverage from such sources that would factor in notability. GuardianH 16:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IP editor's analysis above. Agree with the other editors that the sourcing seems too weak to meet WP:NCORP. Madeleine (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks Significant CoverageRahmatula786 (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Per nom fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 12:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Defunct LPFM that fails WP:GNG. No sources. Chuterix (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Chuterix (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article at the moment cites two Burlington Free Press articles, and one of those articles was also in there at the time of nomination as an offline source. Not sure if those can or should be enough (I'm not offering an opinion at this time), but that is not exactly "no sources" either. (For completeness: the Big Heavy World source, since that entity was not independent of the station, is of no relevance here in determining notability.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This is one of the borderline cases, and I wish I had a little more recent coverage. I do not know why they turned in the license as there is no coverage. But coverage for an LPFM feels stronger in Vermont than most places (e.g. WOOL (FM) which was low-power for years). Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 18:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 12:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Primary sourced PR for non notable individual. No sign of any pass of WP:PROF. Search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mississippi, and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'm a little on the fence here about this one. On the one hand, the article is very poorly sourced, largely with interviews and sources that may or may not provide any evidence of notability. On the other hand, Hood does have a number of published academic works. I'm not a meteorologist, so I'm not sure if the number of articles is above, below, or at the average for a typical researcher. I do see that one article has 841 citations though. I was also able to find a syndicated news article highlighting her role in hurricane hunting (Statesville Record and Landmark, October 8, 2001, page 17). nf utvol (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there's enough to pass WP:GNG. There's this piece about her and her work in the New Scientist [29], this entry in the book A Cherokee Encyclopedia [30], this article about her retirement [31], this article about her winning an award [32], and this profile for a kids' TV show [33]. There are also dozens of articles that quote her or talk about her work, and there are these two interviews [34] [35], although they obviously can't be considered towards WP:GNG. All up I think it's enough to satisfy WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Plenty of sigcov. Jordano^5³ 16:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with keep voters. The Google Scholar is not claimed but just the first 3 publications with the subject's name has over 1000 citations, so the subject could also qualify under WP:NSCHOLAR. Dwnloda (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I only looked at the sources presented by MCE89 above but I think they are enough to show GNG. Moritoriko (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge‎ to Jauer as a WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

There's only one person with the surname. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The corresponding German article at de:Jauer has more people. de:Nikolaus Magni von Jauer treats Jauer as a surname, although the English article Nicholas Magni does not. The person was born in Jawor (German: Jauer), which explains that instance of the surname. An alternative to deletion would be to merge this into Jauer (disambiguation), but that's propbably not necessary given the other names shown in the corresponding German page.

Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: two of the three entries are a mere translation from German, but the Jauer toponym they refer to is Jawor. The third entry is already listed at the disambiguation page Jauer. Broc (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary split from Jauer, which makes it harder, not easier, for users to find the intended target. Geschichte (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the existing disambig at Jauer can handle any individual whom a reader might reasonably want to find. Incidentally, nowadays "von Jauer" might seem like a surname, but in the historical context of Nikolaus Magni it's hard to distinguish between a genuine bit of name, and a mere piece of natural language specifying that he's the one who came from Jauer. It's not unlike a radio announcer saying "Next we're going to talk to Linda Smith from Leicester", and the German wikipedia article itself drops the von Jauer bit when referring to him in the subsequent text. Elemimele (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree with Geschichte that this is an unnecessary split. The article now has only three names, so I don't think the name warrants a standalone entry.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Jauer, which does not yet include a list of people with this name (whether spelt according to German, Polish or Latin spelling conventions). As Eastmain notes, German Wikipedia lists others with this name. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:G4. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Press consists of mentions, paid media, or otherwise unreliable sources. Sentences like "He is also active on social media, sharing insights into real estate investing, aviation, and wealth-building strategies" make this TNT worthy but I see a speedy was already declined. CNMall41 (talk) 10:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, United States of America, and Illinois. CNMall41 (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Arizona, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As mentioned in the nom, while the press coverage may seem substantial on the surface, reading it reveals that it is largely either press releases, brief mentions, interviews, et cetera. Sourcing is definitely not at a level acceptable for a BLP, either. The article was also written by a WP:SPA, Jabotaave, indicating an undisclosed COI or possible paid editing for promotional purposes. nf utvol (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. As discussed above, lacking sources. This creator was a SPA, the creator of the page the first time around was a sockpuppet. tedder (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I think this qualify for speedy deletion under G4.Instant History (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Subject is now defunct. Lack of independent in-depth sources. Imcdc Contact 09:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Pennsylvania. Imcdc Contact 09:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks independent and reliable sources demonstrating significant coverage, fails WP:NCORP. Madeleine (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above discussion. As a defunct company, we're unlikely to find new sources. Bearian (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Given the recent work on the page, draftifying the article or replacing with a redirect now seems inappropriate. (non-admin closure) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested PROD. This seems like a run-of-the-mill tanker. My internet search (using the names "HMS Belgol" and "RFA Belgol") did not find that the subject meets the general notability guideline. There is one source not cited by the article that is worth mentioning, Historical RFA. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 07:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC) I am formally withdrawing this nomination. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 03:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Transportation, and United Kingdom. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 07:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- ship is notable but article is mistitled (should be RFA not HMS) and basically gives no info beyond birth (launch) and death (scrapping). Could be moved back to draftspace (as with all ships articles by this editor) but overall I think WP:TNT can apply Lyndaship (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Now Keep following MJroots work Lyndaship (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to the class article, which will also need a lot of fixing. As per Lyndaship, this article doesn't state anything beyond what would be in a class article anyway.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Belgol-class tanker. There may well be the seed of an article here, but there isn't one now, so a redirect is better until and unless a better article that establishes independent notability can be written. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Now Keep, good work Mjroots. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the class article which The Bushranger linked to has a link to the Historical RFA's webpage on the ship. A quick look at Teesbuilt also reveals a webpage on the ship]. That's before even looking at The Times for any mention of the ship during her 40+ years of service. This should be salvageable. As we all know, needing improvement is not a reason for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have changed my vote following your vast expansion. However, I still feel that the correct decision for the article as it was should have been draftify, redirect or delete. This editor has created many articles similar to this one which have been moved to draft and returned to mainspace unchanged. Are you going to expand them all? Lyndaship (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Lyndaship: - the editor in question is a new editor, having started editing last month. It would be better to encourage him to expand the articles himself, pointing to sources that are available, such as those listed at WP:SHIPS/R. Let's not WP:BITE the newby. Mjroots (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I did on his talk page Lyndaship (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think I've done enough to save the article. Just a question of knowing where to look. @PrinceTortoise, Lyndaship, Nigel Ish, and The Bushranger: would you like to take a look and reconsider your !votes? Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage in two Times articles, along with Historical RFA and other sources, clearly pushes this ship into notability. Thank you for your hard work, Mjroots. I'll withdraw the nomination once the discussion wraps up. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 07:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
please no delete Woffio (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Woffio: The good news is that this article is very likely to be kept (that is, not deleted). I realize now that this process must be confusing for a newer editor such as yourself, and I apologize if my actions have come across as rude. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 06:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to Love of Diagrams. ✗plicit 03:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Last AfD in 2017 was no consensus. I tend to agree with one of the delete voters' comments from last time "Lacks reviews, sales, charting, depth of coverage. Current sources just verify it's existence but don't provide any real independent coverage". An added Amazon source hardly adds to notability, Australian Music Online is just a database listing. Still fails WP:NALBUMS. LibStar (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not much more but this. Reviews sparse as search results show until now. Would be a shame. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option and it's not clear what outcome User:Ouro is advocating.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Love of Diagrams per WP:ATD for albums. – The Grid (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. I stand by my comment quoted above. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge‎ to Jean Joseph de Laborde, Marquis of Laborde. ✗plicit 03:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTINHERITED. Accomplishments and sources are lacking. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, France, and Alaska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jean Joseph de Laborde, Marquis of Laborde, his more notable father. I do see coverage of Ange Auguste Joseph in [36], but its very much in the context of his father. (Édouard Jean Joseph de Laborde de Marchainville should likely get the same treatment.) Jfire (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is acceptable and reasonable. Bearian (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Reading Ouro's comment as a "keep" proposal. Sandstein 09:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM because the media have written in-depth descriptions of this album. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: do you mean "have not written"? Geschichte (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scuse me whaaat? Liberal pick from the reviews quickly found on Google: [37], [38]. [39], [40]. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not enough WP:BEFORE work was done here, and the article simply needs expansion. The album's release announcement was profiled (briefly) by the reliable Pitchfork [41], and then it received reliable pro reviews from Kerrang [42] and New Noise [43]. It was also reviewed by a lot of lesser-known but still valid punk magazines like Wall of Sound [44] and others found by the voter above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, User:Ouro, I don't know how to interpret your comment. Could you simplify it into our standard language of Keep, Delete, Redirect, Draftify or Merge? Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per doomsdayer520's reviews proving WP:GNG. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 04:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to Dakota State Trojans football, 2010–2019. Sandstein 09:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. This is an article on a fifth-tier (1. FBS > 2. FCS > 3. Div II > 4. Div III > 5. NAIA) college football team that won no championships, made no post-season appearance, and compiled a 6-5 record. The article lacks any WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources, and my WP:BEFORE search did not find any. Cbl62 (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and South Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to decade article. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dakota State Trojans football, 2010–2019, as I have performed the merge now. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three problems with merging: (1) from past discussions, closers can't and won't do that unless someone takes the time to create the target article, (ii) in this case we don't have a run of articles that covers a full decade (e.g., 2020-2025), and (iii) even a decade article has to have some level of SIGCOV, and I'm not sure it exists on this program. Unless these obstacles are overcome, deletion is the only viable option. Cbl62 (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles for Dakota State for every season from 2015 to 2024. Yes, indeed, regarding your first point, which is why AfD shouldn't be the first move on articles like. It would be better to recruit editors like SS2027, who created this run of Dakota State articles, and others at WP:CFB. Is the coverage of Dakota State so sparse it can't even justify a decade article? In theory, maybe, but probably not considering your own creations like 2022 Ohio Athletic Conference football season and 2022 Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association football season. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've created Dakota State Trojans football, 2010–2019, merged all the content from the 2015 through 2019 articles, and redirected the 2016 through 2019 season articles. Would you withdraw this nomination, and then we can redirect this article there as well? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a fan of Dakota State, so I have liked to do my part to help record their history. I completely understand when a page I create, especially when they are just an NAIA team, gets taken down for not relevant enough. I'm just an amateur at this and like to do it as a hobby, so I don't fully understand what it takes for a page to be relevant enough. I like the idea of a decades article and would gladly contribute to that. I'd definitely like to do a 'Dakota State Trojans football, 1970–79' article too, as that's when they won 5 conference championships, a bowl game, and had an undefeated season. SS2027 (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating a target article. I have no objection to the proposed merger as an ATD, but withdrawal is not available since there is a delete vote. Cbl62 (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And thus this is AFD is now is a futile exercise in wiki-bureaucracy. No matter what arguments anyone makes here now, there's no reason not to redirect 2015 Dakota State Trojans football team to Dakota State Trojans football, 2010–2019. Which is why opening this AfD was the wrong move in the first place. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this is [sic] AFD is now is a futile exercise in wiki-bureaucracy. No matter what arguments anyone makes here now, there's no reason not to redirect I disagree for several reasons:

(1) This article relates to an NAIA season (i.e., the fifth and lowest tier of amateur college football) and one that concluded with an ordinary 6-5 record -- no championships, no postseason bowl games, and no SIGCOV that I've been able to find.

(2) The practice of creating season articles for such non-notable programs needs to be nipped in the bud. It simply invites derision and risks a more ferocious attack on college football season articles as a whole. If we as a project cannot police ourselves and draw a reasonable line on season articles (and this article is far below any such reasonable line), then I fully expect that others with less knowledge or passion for the niceties of Division I vs. Division III will seek to draw those lines for us.

(3) I have growing doubts about whether even decade articles are warranted at this lowest level of the game. What's next? Decade articles on high school football teams supported by similarly short blurbs from local newspapers?

(4) I now see that the redirect target you created doesn't even cover the full decade. It only covers five of the 10 years and thus is not even really a "decade article". If this is the best anyone cares to do, I would suggest draftifying the "half-decade" article until someone cares enough to actually turn it into a "decade" article.

(5) There are a lot of sources cited in the "half-decade" redirect, but they are almost all game accounts published by the school and thus are not independent and don't count toward GNG. @Jweiss11: Can you provide the WP:THREE best indy sources providing in-depth coverage of the team (or any portion of the decade)? Cbl62 (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62, I've expanded Dakota State Trojans football, 2010–2019 so that it has content for all ten seasons in the decade, and added a few references from Newspapers.com. There is some substantive coverage now cited in the 2010 schedule table. Much more can be found. The coverage for Dakota State and its various conference mates and frequent opponents look roughly on par with that you'll find in support of many sub-Division I grouped seasoned articles, many of which you created, like 2023 Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association football season. The difference in prominence between NCAA Division III and NAIA football is hair-splitting. Many NAIA programs have gone straight to Division II when joining the NCAA. I have no plans to delve into high school football seasons, but "what's next" is already is progress, and you've participated in it, junior college football articles including team season articles. Whatever the case, as long as Dakota State Trojans football, 2010–2019 exist, wouldn't it be absurd for 2015 Dakota State Trojans football team to be deleted rather than redirected to the decade article, particularly now that we have analogous redirects for all nine other years in the decade. This AfD should be closed as a redirect, and then you can decide if you really want to AfD Dakota State Trojans football, 2010–2019. But I would recommend you address your own creations like 2023 Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association football season first. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: Your comparison is inapt. 2023 Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association football season includes content on each of the teams at issue. As for your contention that junior college season articles are or should be "next", I would caution against any Oklahoma Land Rush to populate Wikipedia with JC team seasons. Yes, I worked last year on JC national championship teams (e.g., 1961 Cameron Aggies football team) but certainly do not advocate widespread creation of JC team articles. I certainly hope that is not your plan. Cbl62 (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association football season contains info on seven team seasons arrayed across one conference in one year of competition. Dakota State Trojans football, 2010–2019 contains info on ten team seasons for one program arrayed across one decade of competition. These are essentially orthogonal arrays, like latitude versus longitude. 2023 Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association football season is also a style fork of the standard conference season format, which we've discussed elsewhere. As for JC seasons, you also created 1941 Los Angeles City Cubs football team and 1946 Compton Tartars football team, which were apparently not national championship teams. And as for newly-created non-NC JC seasons, you should probably talk to JTtheOG. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1946 Compton won the inaugural Little Rose Bowl which was considered the JC NC game. 1941 LACC was a perfect season in the era when there was no formal mechanism to determine a NC but SoCal was then the dominant venue for JC football. I don't understand your comments about orthogonal arrays or about talking to JTtheOG, but I think 2023 MIAA is a valid article; if you disagree, I have no objection to your taking it to the pending AfD. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you want to further discuss orthogons or JTtheOG. Cbl62 (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl, forget about the "orthogonal arrays". Too in the weeds there. I'll find a better way to make that point. As for JTtheOG, I was referring to his work on 1982 Southwestern Apaches football team, and three other season articles for that program. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

High school coverage is covered by WP:YOUNGATH (I know it's about biographies but the principle still applies). ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have growing doubts about whether even decade articles are warranted at this lowest level of the game. What's next? Decade articles on high school football teams supported by similarly short blurbs from local newspapers? I'd just like to point out that there are non-NC JC seasons with two or three times the amount of demonstrated coverage as seemingly any JC NC-winning teams, not to mention the eight indy sources at 2023 Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association football season or the four or five indy sources on some NC winners like 1987 Ellsworth, 1996 Blinn, 1969 Northeastern Oklahoma A&M, 2016 Garden City, and 2023 DuPage. I'm pretty sure I recently saw one with one indy source as well. JTtheOG (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of WP:SIGCOV is here or elsewhere for this subject to meet the WP:NSEASONS. Let'srun (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dakota State Trojans football, 2010–2019. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dakota State Trojans football, 2010–2019: For now, this should be redirected to the decade article, which is not only now completed, but decently sourced to third-party publications as well (and not just short blurbs). As per Jweiss11, if anyone feels like the decade article would not meet GNG under scrutiny, they are welcome to send it to AfD. I definitely understand Cbl62's argument that we should police ourselves before that task is undertaken by the wider WP community, as we've seen the chaos that brings, but I think redirecting instead of leaving this as a standalone article does just that. It is much easier to justify a bundled article like this, especially with the precedents that have been set. JTtheOG (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Now that the target has been expanded to encompass the full decade (and additional sourcing added). The redirect still needs work but it's a whole heckuva lot better, and more defensible, than what we had. Cbl62 (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to target article, while the sourcing seems to leave a bit to be desired right now I'm open to giving the article creator time to improve it. Let'srun (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dakota State Trojans football, 2010–2019, per all above. I generally agree that any non-national championship college football team season articles for programs below the NCAA Division I level should probably have to go through AfC first before going live. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting suggestion. I would support it. I wonder if there's precedent for setting up a similar process to pre-approve articles at the WikiProject level. Cbl62 (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ejgreen, I don't think that is an appropriate use of Wikipedia:Articles for creation (AfC), which is intended to assist new/unregistered users and those with a conflict of interest in creating new articles, not veteran editors like with no COI, like everyone who has weighed in here. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to Dakota State Trojans football, 2020–present. Or elsewhere as editors may deem appropriate. Sandstein 09:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. This is an article on a fifth-tier (1. FBS > 2. FCS > 3. Div II > 4. Div III > 5. NAIA) college football team that won no championships, made no post-season appearance, and compiled a 6-4 record. The article lacks any WP:SIGCOV from reliable independent sources, and my WP:BEFORE search did not find any. Cbl62 (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and South Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to decade article. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dakota State Trojans football, 2020–present. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can an editor provide a link to the suggested merge target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dakota State Trojans football, 2010–2019: now that the full decade article has been created. JTtheOG (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to Dakota State Trojans football, 2010–2019. Sandstein 09:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. This is an article on a fifth-tier (1. FBS > 2. FCS > 3. Div II > 4. Div III > 5. NAIA) college football team that won no championships, made no post-season appearance, and compiled a 1-9 record. The article lacks any WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources, and my WP:BEFORE search did not find any. Cbl62 (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's articles on each Dakota State season from 2015 to 2024 – perhaps merge them all into a decade article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three problems with merging: (1) from past discussions, closers can't and won't do that unless someone takes the time to create the target article, (ii) decade articles are normally done from the start of a decade to the end (e.g., 2010-2019), and in this case we don't have a run of articles that covers a full decade, and (iii) even a decade article has to have some level of SIGCOV, and I'm not sure it exists on this progrm. Cbl62 (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What set of years do you think would be necessary to have them merged? Perhaps the creator, @SS2027:, would be willing to do a merger article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, decade articles run from the beginning to the end of a decade. E.g., 2010-2019 or 2020-2025. If someone cared to create such an article and populate it with SIGCOV from multiple, reliable sources, that might work, but absent that, deletion is the only currently viable option. Cbl62 (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and South Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dakota State Trojans football, 2020–present. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dakota State Trojans football, 2010–2019: now that the full decade article has been created. JTtheOG (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. This orphan sub-stub is about a small-college football team that apparently played only one game. The season is so lacking in notability that we don't even have information on the date of the game or the location where the game was played. Moreover, the article lacks any WP:SIGCOV and is based entirely on non-independent sources. On 10/31/24, I notified the article creator that the article needed better sourcing, but three months have passed, and no new sourcing has been added. Cbl62 (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only trivial mentions, and these are about the single game, not the team. Fails WP:V. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If we don't even have the most trivial information about this team's "season", much less any more detailed information, then we fall far short of GNG. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NSEASONS with a complete lack of sourcing. Let'srun (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 03:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Repost of content previously deleted and salted at CarDekho/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CarDekho/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CarDekho (2nd nomination) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Internet, Transportation, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am the administrator who declined G4. I just wanted to come by and say that the previous discussion was in 2016, nine years ago, and that since then the company has apparently achieved a valuation of $1.2 billion and has undergone five rounds of venture capital fundraising. That seems quite significant. -- Y not? 00:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The last AfD discussion was nine years ago. Since then, the company has grown into a unicorn group with diverse business interests and has been extensively covered by numerous reliable secondary sources. The sources cited in the article are reliable, provide significant coverage, and meet WP:NCORP. Plenty more coverage can be found online.. DJ allu (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject has received substantial coverage in several WP:RS. A quick search will turn out several in-depth coverage on the subject. Jamiebuba (talk) 08:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Jamiebuba and since the last deletion, several new sources are added in the article. See, [45], [46], [47], and [48]. These sources have provided in-depth coverage of the subject. I can say that, these are WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:RS and it meets WP:NCORP. Taabii (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to Disney Star#International. Or elsewhere: there's no consensus as to the redirect target, so it can be editorially changed. Sandstein 09:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it don't prove the notability of the subject, Utsav Plus, as required by Wikipedia's general notability guideline WP:GNG. The article lacks reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of Utsav Plus. The single source cited is a primary source (a YouTube video from the channel itself), which is insufficient to establish notability. The article makes claims about the channel's launch and programming, but these are not supported by any independent verification. A redirect to StarPlus might be considerable. However, given the current lack of independent sourcing, deletion is the appropriate outcome. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Disney_Star#International. Per nom. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Poor sources that are news on launch, airing, bringing back, announcements and such. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge‎ to Jarret Brachman. Sandstein 09:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a neologism, and does not meet our standards for it. There is actually a lot of usage of the term, but it's always referring to it in the context of its creator, and should be merged to the creator of the term, Jarret Brachman. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage. It's hilarious, and I'm a fan of portmanteaux myself (I invented mergetarian in 2008), but as the years have passed, we've become more strict with notability. Bearian (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will do the merge myself if the consensus is not to keep. There is coverage, it's just in the context of its creator. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the creator, per nom Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. No support beyond nominator for outright deletion and several sources offered as GNG-qualifying and unrebutted. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

She is married into nobility, and does not seem notable as a businesswoman or podcaster. I don't think a redirect to Belvoir_Castle#Present_use would benefit the reader, nor would a merger be Due. She's separated from David Manners, 11th Duke of Rutland so I'm not sure a merger there makes sense, and redirecting a woman to her spouse always seems odd to me. Star Mississippi 02:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Royalty and nobility, and England. Star Mississippi 02:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Radio, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into her husband's article. This is such a common outcome as an ATD, do I need to link examples or my essay? Bearian (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She is the CEO of Belvoir Castle and runs its commercial activities. She is a published author and podcaster, and highly active on social media, making her on of the nobles with a strong online presence. She is a successful businesswoman and, in my view, there is room for her own page. Although she is separated, in my view, she is slightly more notable then her husband, given the widespread interviews she has given to several outlets throughout the years. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG. There is SIGCOV of her over time in independent, reliable, secondary sources including The Times, the BBC, The Daily Telegraph and the Palm Beach Daily News. I have added some info - there is more in the sources about what she has done to restore, maintain and promote Belvoir Castle (it sounds like a lot more than her husband has done). RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject meets WP:GNG. Quick google search shows coverage in The New York Times , The Telegraph, BBC, Leicester Mercury, Shooting UK Spears Magazine People, The Daily Post, The Times, Shropshire Star. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She meets WP:GNG but the references need improvement. Nineteen of the current 42 are her autobiography and therefore should eventually be removed (along with their claims if not substantiated elsewhere) because to state the obvious they are from a source that is not independent of the subject. I have added a template. Ira Leviton (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to Star Gold. Sandstein 09:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it fails to establish the notability of the subject, Utsav Gold, as required by Wikipedia's notability guideline for television channels WP:NTV and the general notability guideline WP:GNG. The article provides no reliable, independent sources that offer significant coverage of Utsav Gold. Without verifiable evidence from reliable sources, the article does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. A redirect to Star Gold might be considerable. However, without such sources, deletion is appropriate. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as proposed The problem is that these are specialty channels in niche international markets with no original programming. The variant name Utsav was adopted so the Star name could be used by Disney+ in certain European markets. The other Utsav channels should get the same treatment. Standalone notability of this type of TV service is very rare. (NB: NTV is an essay and covers TV programming, not channels.) Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 02:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 02:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 07:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indiscriminate collection of links to Wikidata, a user-generated database, which is not a reliable source. There is more to say about this particular list, but I am not going there because that would likely just distract from the main point. Randykitty (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Organizations, and Lists. Randykitty (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. We should not be importing content from Wikidata, and that is the entirety of this list. It does not meet our standards for verifiability through reliable sourcing. And even for the entries that come with sources from Wikidata, they are of dubious independence from their subjects, generally formatted badly and unfixable by Wikipedia editing as the bad formatting comes from Wikidata. This should go as well for List of learned societies in the United States and List of learned societies in the United States, which have exactly the same issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you try to separate your misgivings of Wikidata from the issue of whether this list should exist (which is the purpose of AfD)? This is the version of the article before it was converted to a table (using WD). This does not use any data from Wikidata but you will see that it is far inferior, with less information and no references at all — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it seems to me that there are two issues. First does the list meet the criteria of WP:NLIST and second is it a useful thing for navigation per WP:LISTPURP-NAV. On the latter point, this is a long list of wikilinks which is a recognised form of navigation, other examples include List of banks (alphabetical). Returning to the former point, the question is whether the list is of notable things to the extent that having the page helps with a user navigating the encyclopedia. On this point I'm currently undecided. JMWt (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - So, returning to think about this some more. WP:NLIST states One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable source further nothing that the entirety of the list does not need to be noted just the group of things. So it would appear that a simple way to establish if a list of learned societies is notable is to see if reliable sources consider them as a group. Here are some references that do that 1 and 2 and 3

Clearly Learned society is a notable idea and reliable sources have considered them as a group. It also seems likely that a list sorted by country consisting of many blue wikilinks would be useful for navigation - for example by a reader wanting to see which learned society exists in their country.

JMWt (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you maybe address the actual issue discussed in the nomination, which is not whether such a list could in principle be encyclopedic, but whether the list we have, based entirely on import from Wikidata, is appropriate to have? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well we are to make judgements against the policies and guidelines of en.wiki which I did. As far as I know, the fact that the list came from wikidata is irrelevant, but maybe there's a guideline or policy that I don't know about that you would like to point to? JMWt (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata is not irrelevant here. Fact is that this list cannot be edited n WP. If one would want to change anything that is currently displayed in this list here, that is completely impossible and one has to go to WD and figure out how to make the desired change there! In addition, user-generated databases are not acceptable as sources and creating articles that are more or less automatically derived from such a database is a complete no-no. --Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it can't be edited within en.wiki (which I didn't appreciate before) seems like an issue, albeit a solvable one if we don't like that.

But this thing about "user-generated" content seems to me like we are talking about two different things. Usually when we talk about "user-generated" sources we are pointing to a dif which has given a reference which is a blog or other unedited and self-published material. I don't think when we talk about it we usually are meaning wikidata.

Second, all lists on en.wiki are essentially user-generated because there are very few full lists in reliable sources for the majority of things we have lost pages for here. Also Wikipedia:NLIST doesn't even require a reliable source to show all of the things in the list.

So we are really just back to a complaint about the formatting that wikidata produces and whether that's suitable for a page on en.wiki. JMWt (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. The entirety of this list is imported from an unreliable source. Having a list with this title might not be completely beyond the pale in principle, but doing it to a minimum acceptable standard, and to provide value above and beyond the existence of Category:Learned societies would require blowing this page up and starting over. XOR'easter (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to go with keep even if I don't like the way this list has been generated, on the grounds that AfD is not supposed to be clean-up. The concept of a learned societies as a group is definitely notable, for example in the context of the long-running bust-up between academia and academic publishers, where many academics feel that the journals published by learned societies are less-predatory/profiteering than those published by the big non-learned publishers. This table, and the very similar table at List of learned societies in the United Kingdom (and one for the US too) are also very useful navigational tables. Elemimele (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for deletion is not that the subject doesn't merit an article nor that such a list is not useful for navigation. The point is that this list (and the US spinoff) is not edited on enWP, but on another website (i.e., Wikidata). WD is not a reliable source and cannot be used as a source. Even less should we import such unreliable content, that lacks overview by enWP editors. The current lists are unusable and to create an acceptable list, the current ones need to be blown up. --Randykitty (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but in a sense I still disagree. The existing list is, at the very least, useful for navigation (which doesn't require reliable sourcing). If we blow it up, unless someone actually replaces it with a proper list, we've lost the navigation aspect. It really embarrasses me to disagree with you and David Eppstein. Elemimele (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Navigation requires reliable sourcing! We might not require a blue clicky linky number on every item (indeed, sometimes that would be silly), but we do need a basis for it that is worth building upon, not a data dump from a site no better than Wikipedia itself. A list full of items that can't be trusted is not a trustworthy navigational aid. XOR'easter (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To me this makes no sense. What do you mean it is not a "trustworthy navigational aid" and what policy of en.wiki does that violate? The items are literally blue links, the topic is evidently notable. The only issue you appear to have is the difference between wikidata rearranging WP content, which is then recycled back into WP and on the other hand someone creating exactly the same content using standard WP coding notation.

And as far as I see it isn't a "data dump" either, multiple editors were involved in adding content. Once the precedent was set for using wikidata notation, other editors followed suit. So where's the data dump? JMWt (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the issue I have is that Wikipedia shouldn't be a Wikidata mirror. The items in this list are, as you said above, not editable within Wikipedia. The best case is that the data on Wikidata is derived purely from Wikipedia, and even that best case would just be a policy violation. And it doesn't matter whether the list is the work of one editor or many. Piecewise incorporation of unreliable data is still reliance upon an unreliable source. XOR'easter (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But put it this way: if we simply copy-pasted the (text version of the) entire thing and stuck square brackets round each item, it would be a totally valid navigational list, because all the items on it have proper articles, and that they are learned societies is obvious from the articles to which they link. Actually: would it be reasonable to do this to the list, so it's then editable from Wikipedia and detached from Wikidata? Elemimele (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried doing that as an experiment and can't see that it's possible. But that might be my incompetence. JMWt (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could have a go in my sandbox later today... Elemimele (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JMWt and Elemimele. Topic clearly suitable for a list, and it satisfies the navigation use of a list. That the list is now coming from Wikidata is indeed irrelevant, because the issue can be dealt with editing, and deletion policy states that, therefore, this cannot be a reason for deletion (and no, WP:TNT is not policy; as for essays, see then WP:TNTTNT). --cyclopia ^speak! 13:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've had a go at List_of_learned_societies_in_the_United_Kingdom which as David Eppstein pointed out suffers from exactly the same problems as the current list. I've converted it to a simple navigational table with minimal extra information, derived from the original automated list, and put it at User:Elemimele/List_of_learned_societies_in_the_United_Kingdom. Having gone through this process, I am convinced that the current list needs to be delinked from wikidata. I didn't check exhaustively row-by-row, but in the process of conversion it was blatantly obvious that some entries were weird or wrong, so it's utterly necessary that they should be editable, easily, by anyone here who finds that they're wrong. Elemimele (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How did you do that? If it can be easily done and will not take too long, the simplest solution would appear to be to do this conversion to standard notation JMWt (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I copy pasted the whole table into Excel, then edited it to replace blank cells with at least something (hence all the silly asterisks) and to remove weird locations and dates, and the references (since I was aiming for a navigational list, deriving information from the target pages, and the references might be more complicated to carry across). Then I saved it as a .csv file, and used the tool website that's on my user-page to convert the .csv file to a wiki-formatted table. It would be harder work for the current article as it's subdivided into a whole load of mini-tables for each country, but I'm from the UK so I thought I'd try the UK version first! Elemimele (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well it works but that seems like quite an involved process. JMWt (talk) 08:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So the question now is what to do with the current article? So far as I can see, there are various ways this could go. The first big question is whether those who've !voted delete would accept an article of the sort I've put in my sandbox? If YES, we need to decide how to achieve it. I suspect those who want to delete will want a solid assurance that a Keep outcome doesn't just mean we all wander off and the existing wikidata-linked table remains unchanged. The article is too old to be draftified. One option would be for the closing admin to delete, but immediately do a refund of the existing article to someone's user-space (happy for mine to be used), where any of us can work on it at leisure, and resubmit it to main-space when it's fully converted. Would this be a compromise that would satisfy a majority, or are there still obstacles? Elemimele (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... XOR'easter, Randykitty, David Eppstein you've all raised serious concerns. XOR'easter put it particularly well: the existing table is based on an unreliable source, so of course me "laundering" it into a purely Wikipedia table doesn't initially change the information. But I think it makes two fundamental improvements: Firstly, the list is fully editable within Wikipedia, independent of Wikidata, so errors can be corrected by any editor in the normal way. Secondly, as a navigational list, it is allowed to depend on the target articles for information and sourcing. In fact ideally we should be checking line-by-line that any extra, non-navigational information in the list (the date and location) matches the parent article and its sources. Any thoughts? Elemimele (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support your efforts on this. I also think it probably wouldn't take a really long time to do it manually (as an alternative option). But there's no point if the page is then deleted - given the !delete voters above are not accepting that the problem is with notation. JMWt (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's give them a chance to reply. I think some of them are in the States and it's the weekend, so they may not have seen anything yet. Elemimele (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The one in your sandbox is a good start but is totally inadequately sourced. If something like that were fully sourced, line by line, with all its content editable (as the one in your sandbox is), I would consider it acceptable as a list. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced the tabulation is necessary in this case, and if claims are not made then there is no need for sourcing each entry. There are many lists on en.wiki which are simply navigational and consist of blue links.

Anyway, this seems a distance from the discussion about notability. If the entries need sources then that's an issue of cleanup not notability - I've already shown that the collective group of learned societies are notable and nobody has refuted. JMWt (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We need to decide which way we're going. The options are: (1) subject is non-notable or current version irreperably awful, in which case delete: (2) subject is a notable grouping, in which case we need referenced text about the group and its meaning, but completeness and links to other articles are merely desirable (the list must stand on its own two, referenced feet); (3) subject can be handled as a navigational list, in which case it is merely there to help readers find a lot of related articles. In this final case, the list should contain minimal extra information, and should not be sourced as it stands on the feet of the articles that it groups, and must not become a content fork of them. The latter two cases are keeps but need extensive work. Elemimele (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that (2) would be appropriate but no one here is likely to have time to make it happen, so (3) is a fall-back realistic ATD, allowing future editors to build if they wish, while preserving something genuinely useful to readers. I'm willing to put in the work to do (3) if that's the outcome. Elemimele (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was ‎Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

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

Ever since I joined Wikipedia, I've been trying to find the difference between Aden Governorate and Aden and today I am happy to announce that they are the exact same thing. Aden covers everything in this article except for the governor assassination part which should be merged and this article should be redirected to Aden.

This deletion would make it consistent with the Sanaa article which also includes the first-level subdivision 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the article at Aden agreed with you, I would support. But nothing in Aden or Aden Governorate says they are coterminous or a consolidated entity. Do you have a source that they are the exact same thing? --Golbez (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well the thing is I didn't find a source that shows them as two separate entities 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Golbez Plus the Aden article does agree with me. Just a few hours ago before @2dk's copyedit the lead used to say: Aden is divided into eight districts: Tawahi, Mualla, Crater, Khur Maksar, Al Mansura, Dar Sad, Sheikh Othman, and Al Buraiqa. (Those are the districts of the Aden governorate which implies that they're the same thing) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a source saying they're the same. We have sourcing saying the governorate exists; you need sourcing saying it doesn't. Listing things on two articles does not qualify. --Golbez (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather, simply saying that there's similar info on both doesn't work. That might be a reason normally to merge articles, but subdivisions are considered inherently notable, so that doesn't work in this case. I can find several official bodies through a google search using the term "Aden Governorate," so I think we need some kind of affirmative sourcing that the governorate either does not exist, or is the same as the city. --Golbez (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Golbez: Just FYI I want this to be merged and redirected to Aden. Aden Governorate is a thing, the same thing as Aden and I'd like to see the source that says that they are not 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usually when one article is mostly just info from another article, they can be merged, but since governorates are inherently article-worthy, in this case the solution is to build out the deficient article. From what I can tell, the City of Aden and Aden Governorate are separate actual entities, and therefore, get separate articles. --Golbez (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A city isn't the same as a governorate. Plus their areas (according to their articles) are different: 760 vs. 1114 km², respectively. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. This United Nations Human Settlements Programme Aden City Profile article clearly distinguishes between them: "Aden is the largest city of southern Yemen. It is also the administrative centre of the Aden governorate." Also this Berghof Foundation page: "[The Aden Governorate] is home to Yemen's main commercial port, Aden Port". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend I've read both documents and did not find a single instance where they showed any difference between the city and the governorate. In fact, the UNHabitat document "Aden City" showed nothing but the governorate. Implying that they're the same thing. This is just like the Greenland article case where it is both about the adminstrative region and the Island itself (Btw thank you for that document, it will be helpful in expanding the Aden article) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you blind? I gave you the exact quotes. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend The UN quote is vague and the paper uses a map of the governorate when talking about the city and the Bergof foundation talks about the Aden port and not the Aden city... 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The UN quote is vague? How? Is Aden the "administrative centre" of ... itself? Don't be deliberately obtuse. It is what it is. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, we simply have to put the onus on you: Do you have sourcing that says the city of Aden is the same as the governorate? Not an "implication," a plain statement of fact. If so, supply. If not, then I think this discussion has run its course. --Golbez (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources are crummy (we have a claim that the Aden Governorate had a population of 589k in 2004 and 1.9M in 2011, and 3X growth in 7 years seems implausible). But it does seem clear that the Governorate encompasses but is distinct from the city itself. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another reliable source, Armed Conflict Location and Event Data, states: "This regional profile provides information about the Aden region, as classified by the YCO, which includes Aden city, the wider Aden governorate and central Lahij."[49] (bolding mine). Clarityfiend (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly different topics. The Banner talk 18:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the two articles are of distinct subjects. Madeleine (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One is a physical entity with a location, the other is a political organisation. They are not the same. They are completely different domains. scope_creep^Talk 14:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Many of the sources are written by the subject. Other sources are links to her Ted Talk or "Best of" lists that include movies for which she was screenwriter. What remains does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Truthnope (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Truthnope (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Other sources are links to her Ted Talk or "Best of" lists that include movies for which she was screenwriter. Doesn’t this meet the criteria for filmmakers § 3? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if that counts as being significant or well-known. The article says of Alexander's Memories of Christmas, "This film has been named on several “Best of Hallmark Christmas movies” lists, including “10 Must-See Hallmark Movies that Celebrate Diversity and Inclusion.” These are listicles, not significant coverage. That criterion also requires that the work or body of work "must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". I wouldn't count these "Best of" lists as reviews. Truthnope (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, California, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is highly promotional, and many sources do not even include her name much less information about her. There are a lot of unverified statements, like that she wrote the Hallmark movie, and I can't find a source for that. (It's not in IMDB, and writers' credit wasn't on the Hallmark site.) There are a few websites that list her Tedx talk as a resource, but that's all. I can find only brief mention of any of her books so she isn't notable as an author. Lamona (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. 190.219.102.54 (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A cursory search of the subject reveals essentially no significant coverage in independent sources. Largely agree with nom here. The page is essentially a WP:RESUME for the purposes of WP:PROMOTION. GuardianH 01:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source 24 is the only one listed as a RS by Cite Highlighter, rest are orange/red, iffy or not at all RS. I can't find anything for sourcing we can use. Does appear PROMO Oaktree b (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not notable video game; not reliable reviews, covering etc. Insillaciv (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. – The Grid (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most sources are just reviews of the trailer, which isn't quite enough. Probably TOOSOON Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm one of the developers of Deadly Quiet, and I wanted to provide some clarification based on the discussion here. The game has received significant coverage from major publications like IGN, Vice, GameSpot, and Bloody Disgusting, AUTOMATION MEDIA, not as paid promotion, but as independent journalism. While Deadly Quiet is upcoming, it has already gained substantial industry recognition, being featured prominently across gaming media. Wikipedia’s guidelines emphasize independent coverage, and the references cited meet that standard. Given the widespread media attention and player engagement, I believe the article meets notability criteria. I appreciate the discussion and respect Wikipedia's guidelines, but I hope this clarification helps in making a fair decision. Thanks for your time! Abuld Rafy (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you had linked and otherwise described mentioned coverage. In general, it is rare for games by unknown developers to receive sufficient coverage before release (see WP:TOOSOON). IgelRM (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Quiet has been independently covered by major gaming sites like IGN, GameSpot, Vice, and Bloody Disgusting, along with international outlets, confirming its notability. These sources are linked in the references. Additionally, we are not unknown developers, we are decently known across the indie horror scene. 93.66.97.220 (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Largely in agreement with nom. A cursory search reveals very, very few sources such that it can be reasonably said that the widespread, independent secondary coverage required of WP:GNG is not met in this case (the game isn't out yet!). The article was created by a WP:SPA in February. GuardianH 00:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not meeting WP:NSCHOOL; directories and primary self published sources Insillaciv (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I respectfully disagree with the nomination for deletion and believe Si Ri Panya International School meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines under WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. As the article’s creator, I’d like to address the concerns about sourcing and demonstrate the school’s notability.

The nominator states that the article relies on "directories and primary self-published sources." While some references, like the school’s website (ref #9), are primary and used for basic factual verification (e.g., facilities, tuition), the article also includes several independent, reliable secondary sources providing significant coverage beyond routine mentions:

- *The Thaiger* (ref #3) reported on the school’s 2019 accreditation as Koh Phangan’s first fully licensed international school, a milestone that sets it apart from other local institutions. This isn’t a directory listing but a news article discussing its impact on the island’s education landscape. - *Expat Life in Thailand* (ref #4) similarly covered the school’s opening and accreditation, offering context about its role in serving expatriate and local families, which goes beyond a mere announcement. - *WhichSchoolAdvisor* (ref #1 and #6) provides an in-depth review of the school’s curriculum, facilities, and fees, written by education experts, not the school itself. This is a detailed, independent analysis, not a directory or self-published source. - *Phanganist* (ref #2 and #5) features articles on the school’s leadership and 21st-century curriculum, written by a local news outlet, offering evaluative content rather than a simple listing.

These sources collectively demonstrate "significant coverage" in independent, secondary publications, addressing the school’s founding, accreditation, and educational approach—key criteria under WP:GNG. The school’s status as the first accredited international school on Koh Phangan (a notable achievement in a small, tourist-driven region) and its Eco-Schools Green Flag Award (ref #12, endorsed by WWF) further distinguish it from typical schools, warranting broader attention.

While directories like the International Schools Database (ref #14) or membership lists (e.g., ISAT, ref #11) are cited, they supplement—not replace—the secondary coverage, verifying the school’s affiliations and demographics. The Precious Plastic initiative (ref #13), a globally recognized program, also ties the school to a wider environmental movement, potentially meriting further coverage if editors can expand on it.

I acknowledge that some sourcing could be strengthened, and I’m actively seeking additional independent references (e.g., Thai newspapers like *Bangkok Post*, *The Nation Thailand*, or expat-focused media such as *Koh Samui Times*) to bolster the article. I’ve already begun this search and will update the article with any new findings during the AfD period, if allowed. However, the existing sources already establish notability beyond what a typical school directory provides. I’d welcome input from other editors to refine the article rather than delete it outright. Given its unique role and documented coverage, Si Ri Panya International School deserves a place on Wikipedia. Thafactfinder (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Article sources fail WP:SIRS. Only one source has a chance of passing, but not enough under WP:ORGCRIT. The article creator looks to have used an LLM for their argument.

Quick source review:

WhichSchoolAdvisor - Directory, fails significant coverage. Looks to be a blog farm, failing reliable.
Phanganist - Article written in cooperation with staff and in a promotional tone, fails independent and reliable.
Expat Life in Thailand - Dead link. Archive here. Press release that shows contact information at bottom, fails independent.
Nomad Mum - Fails reliable. Blog farm.
Cambridge International - Directory of schools affiliated with this organization, fails significant and independent.
WWF Eco-Schools - Directory of schools affiliated with this organization, fails significant and independent.
Precious Plastic - Fails significant, directory.
International Schools Directory.- Fails significant, directory.
Vegan Magazine - Dead link. Archive here. Blog, fails reliable.
PADI - Press release, fails independent.
ThaiSuggest - Dead link. Archive here. Blog, fails reliable.
TheThaiger - looks to be the best source on this list, having a large following. might fail reliability, but not from the local area.

Parksfan1955 (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides the significant amount of promotional material in the article (and some formatting issues), a WP:SIRS check of the sources (as mentioned by a previous editor) disqualifies nearly all of sources (mostly exclusively local or otherwise primary) from factoring into notability. The one source found that might factor in notability is not enough to establish the widespread, independent secondary coverage required to establish notability. GuardianH 00:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article about an organization, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for organizations. As always, every organization is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists, and has to show passage of WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH -- but this is referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability, with not even one piece of GNG-worthy coverage in real media shown at all, and claims absolutely nothing about the group that would be "inherently" notable without GNG-worthy coverage to support it. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no evidence of significant coverage. Ligaturama (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am the creator of the article and did add two notability sources to the article yesterday. I'm also still editing the article, adding relevant information, so would be grateful if you could wait for more feedback before coming to any decision. Horsechestnut (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately neither of these sources count towards the notability guidelines WP:GNG or WP:NORG. An interview on a talk show is a primary and non-independent source, and dangerousminds.net is an unreliable blog (also the blog piece doesn't even cover the organization, just one of their publications). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A cursory search for sources reveals some (i.e., [50]) minor news mentions besides miscellaneous pages of the organization's website. Other than that, there is very little in terms of notability. Minor mentions here and there in some exclusively local sources are mostly this subject's coverage, which does not satisfy the widespread independent secondary coverage required for notability. GuardianH 00:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 07:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Norway. UtherSRG (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: accepting the draft was an error of judgement, the article would have benefitted from being developed there. Notability is a bit thin, but at least she did release her debut album since the last deletion discussion (which I started). Located within the article are three reviews or pieces about that album. Geschichte (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So... would you say "Draftify as an WP:ATD"? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News search shows several other articles about her, which unfortunately are paywalled. They include "Kultur, Musikk | Signe Førre (27) får draumen sin oppfylt på noregsturné" (2022) in Avisa Hordaland; "Signe (27) vil ta vare på det vakre. – Det er litt vanskelig å sette meg i bås" (2021) in Bergens Tidende; "Elegant og tøft frå Signe Førre Trio" (2018) also in Avisa Hordaland; "– Eg hugsar då eg ringde familien og sa at eg fekk spela i Sogndal, det var fylt med mykje glede" (2023) in Sogn Avis; and others. With those already in the article, there is enough coverage to show notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would all depend on if those paywalled articles pass a WP:SIRS check. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]