Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

15 March 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 14	March 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Icepop

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

Not a notable singer/musician. Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:BIO. Frost 09:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Heat

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

Literally can't find any sources on this team. it's lio! | talk | work 09:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and South Carolina. it's lio! | talk | work 09:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Sophia Topley

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

This article doesn’t seem to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. TheSwamphen (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Royalty and nobility, and England. TheSwamphen (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should redirect to Andrew Cavendish, 11th Duke of Devonshire? TheSwamphen (talk) 08:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sarovar Hotels & Resorts

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

This article fails WP:NCORP. A WP:BEFORE search yields only routine business coverage, such as partnership announcements, acquisitions, and press mentions. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Maharashtra. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mymensinghi language

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

Unverifiable. There is no such thing called 'Mymensinghi language'. According to the classification by linguists, it is a typical Eastern Bengali dialect. None of the cited sources in this article call this dialect as a language of its own. There is no reliable source in this article to support these type of false statements. The WP:Hoax article is very much misleading to the wikipedia readers. So, it should be deleted. Snusho (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nathmal Pahalwan

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

This biography lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources also on looking upon the edit history the most of the content was added by IPs as unreferenced. Fails WP:GNG TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Wrestling, and India. TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramkishan Adig

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

This page was created almost 15 years ago but still doesn’t have reliable source which could establish notability. Almost all references cited in this article are blogs except the tribune article which gives only a mention of his name and on WP:BEFORE I didn’t found sources which discuss the subject in depth, fails WP:GNG TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity piece with no significant independent coverage. The sources are non-notable blogs, and reliable sources mention the subject without substantial information.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Indian Premier League playoffs

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

No need for separate stage articles; all are covered in 2025 Indian Premier League. Vestrian24Bio 06:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and India. Vestrian24Bio 06:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shinola (Energy Orchard album)

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

Article has been unsourced for more than a decade, and I couldn't find any good stuff to meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG. -Samoht27 (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -Samoht27 (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Bangladesh disinformation in India

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

This article talks rather about Godi media which prefers to spread disinformation about everything. Yes, they also spread disinformation about their ringleader Bharatiya Janata Party, though in a positive manner, but still that's disinformation. The article was mainly infested with the sock farm that is now blocked. I see no reason to retain this article anymore since it largely violates WP:NOTNEWS. It seems nothing more than a WP:POVFORK of 2024 Bangladesh_anti-Hindu violence, and the necessary content is already parked at 2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence#Disinformation. Koshuri ^(グ) 04:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. Koshuri ^(グ) 04:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Having read this whole article, I find no way to salvage it and present it as a distinct phenomenon which goes against the purpose of this article. If we are really supposed to cover every single instance of disinformation by Indian media, then I think we will create larger articles for Anti-Pakistan disinformation in India,[1][2][3] Disinformation over Indian history by Indian media,[4] Disinformation against Jawaharlal Nehru by Indian media,[5] and more. Everyone knows Godi media is indeed spreading disinformation, however, we don't have to create articles over the treatment of their targets. NXcrypto Message 05:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agreed & Delete per as per nomination. Pretty much Godi Media actually spreads disinformation on every trending topics worldwide, with that logic, many articles similar to this can be created. Also as nominator mentioned, largely violates WP:NOTNEWS. Imwin567 (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Conspiracy theories, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanket Goel

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

Article about a non-notable professor that does not meet WP:GNG. Sources are self published and passing mentions. Bakhtar40 (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Education, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Bakhtar40 (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is a dean at at major university in India (BITS Pilani) , which qualifies him for #C6. As for the IEEE Sensors Council's Distinguished Lecturer Program, the process is very selective and I believe qualifies for #C3. Further the subject has also co-authored many books on MEMS and Microfluidics which are used are coursebooks at many institutions. The subject is a Senior Member of IEEE and is an Editor of many IEEE journals. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/author/37085761553 Shashy 922 (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A dean definitely does not quality for #C6, which only applies to a person who has held the highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution. Only the Vice Chancellor of BITS Pilani would qualify under #C6, not one of the at least 13 deans. Being an IEEE Senior Member also does not confer notability (see the clear consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bin Xie (researcher) from a few weeks ago). And only editors-in-chief of major journals automatically satisfy WP:NPROF, whereas this subject seems to only have held editorial board and associate editor positions. The Distinguished Lecturer Program appears to be a temporary, part-time guest speaker program, and while it seems to have a selection process of some kind, I do not think it is anywhere near an equivalent achievement to the distinguished professor appointment that is required to satisfy #C5. MCE89 (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under #C6, the case that a dean does not qualify is predicated on an overly narrow and rigid interpretation of WP:NPROF that ignores the real influence and decision-making authority that deans possess at prestigious universities. Although the Vice Chancellor is the highest ranking administrative official at BITS Pilani, the assertion that only this post fits under #C6 ignores how academic leadership really operates. Deans at a research-intensive university are not only administrative leaders; they also significantly influence research projects, supervise faculty hiring, guarantee funding, and create academic policies. Precedents in Wikipedia itself also support this—academics like G. "Anand" Anandalingam and Archana Chatterjee, both deans at prominent universities, have been regarded as notable despite not meeting your unfair rigorous interpretation. Furthermore, despite not meeting WP:NROF to this degree of scrutiny, other Wikipedia entries including those on Tanka Bahadur Subba and K. P. S. Mahalwar—who are only visiting professors—have been judged notable. Linda Aldoory, Theodosios Alexander , Rangapriya (Priya) Kannan are some other articles which fall far below the standard notability guideline and yet have been approved by the Wikipedia community, and the subject's notability far exceeds them. These are some articles that I found within a mere 5-minute surf. Given the time I'm sure that there will be far more articles on academicians on Wikipedia that fall below your interpretation of WP:NPROF.

Also, while fellowships at the IETE and IEI may not be at the level of an IEEE fellow, they are respected honors within the Indian engineering community. Further, only a small number of researchers from around the world in the very specific field of sensor technology are chosen for the distinguished lecturer program by the IEEE sensors council, which in itself is a leading organization in sensor technology. The program can be considered for #C2.

The subject also is a part of 3 different startups which impact industries related to biomedical devices. The impact of these startups can be clearly seen through the third-party reliable sources provided in the article.

Finally, one of the most objective indicators of scholarly influence, the subject's h and i10 indexes, place him well above the standard threshold of significant academic impact. To put this into perspective, his h-index of 37 (as of March 2025) and i10-index of 154 (as of March 2025) [6] higher by significant margins than that of John Jumper, the recent Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry who has an h-index of 29 and an i-index of 40 (as of March 2025). Both indexes are widely accepted measures in the research community for measuring a researcher's impact in their domain.

The extremely high and inconsistently applied standard being suggested here is not in line with established precedent on Wikipedia. Goel meets multiple criteria under WP:NPROF, including scholarly impact (#C1), prestigious academic recognition (#C2), professional honors (#C3), academic leadership (#C6), and industrial impact (#C8). Given that Wikipedia has recognized academics with far fewer citations, fewer sources, fewer honors, and lower levels of professional influence, there is no reasonable justification for claiming that Goel is not notable. The interpretation being applied here is far stricter than what has been used in past discussions of academic notability, and excluding Goel would establish an unrealistically high bar that is inconsistent with Wikipedia’s approach to evaluating notable academics. Shashy 922 (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment being a Dean is specifically excluded from being enough for nitability. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing a pass of any of the WP:NPROF criteria. His citations are decent but don't strike me as quite enough for #C1, and I don't think participating in the Fulbright Visiting Scholar Program counts for much towards notability. Fellowships of the IETE and IEI don't appear to be the kind of selective elected memberships that would qualify for #C3, and I don't think his participation in the IEEE Sensors Council’s Distinguished Lecturer Program is at all equivalent to a "distinguished professor appointment" for the purposes of #C5. So I think it's probably WP:TOOSOON for a pass on any of the WP:NPROF criteria, and I didn't see anything else that could give much of a claim to notability. MCE89 (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It is not the strongest case. As already mentioned above, it is NPROF that applies here, and no major WP:BEFORE was done. Dean does not count. His h-factor at 37 is OK, but his highest cited paper is 824 on a different topic (and I am not certain it is the same person) and the others are at most 100. The Fellowships do count somewhat, and without them I would have voted a weak delete. I have seen far weaker cases being defended and passing AfD. Hopefully this will not descend further into contentious statements; please stay calm! Ldm1954 (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I agree that while the subject may not be the most notable academician like a Nobel Prize winner, he is far more qualified than many previous articles published on different subjects in the same category. Instead of deleting the article, I feel as per WP:BEFORE (C), the community should try and improve the article since it has outdated information with sources from 2023. When I did research about him now there were many more sources and information. Shashy 922 (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think these fellowships can be counted towards WP:NPROF#C3 though? If you look at the information on the IETE and IEI websites, only "Distinguished Fellows" and "Honorary Fellows" of the IETE and "Honorary Life Fellows" of the IEI are selective elected positions of the type described in C3. To become a Fellow of either organisation you just need to submit an application showing that you meet the age and education requirements and have held a "position of high responsibility" (just look at the examples they provide for what would qualify as a position of high responsibility), and then pay a fee. Neither strikes me as making this person a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor. MCE89 (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the subject's fellowships might not strike you as qualifying for #C3, there are other articles on Wikipedia with far less notable subjects. Further, there are other criteria in WP:NPROF that the subject qualifies for, as I described in my reply above. Shashy 922 (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Otherstuff might apply to this argument. Augmented Seventh (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While it might seem that I'm pushing forward the "if that then why not this" argument, my aim over here is to bring attention to the fact that editors at Wikipedia have considered other academicians far less notable and qualified than the subject valid. Shashy 922 (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is WP:OSE and especially so when your sole focus here has been promoting Goel to the extent I had to remove your access to edit the page. Please be ware of WP:BLUDGEON Star Mississippi 14:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on his h factor and cited papers. Codonified (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning move to draft at this time, without objection to restoration to mainspace if the subject becomes unequivocally better cited through publication, or is otherwise reported on. BD2412 T 21:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usage data

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

Article has had no sources for years, I can’t find any reliable secondary sources for it myself. And it seems to duplicate the scope of an existing article, Traffic analysis. I fail to see how “analyzing web usage data” is different from web traffic analysis which the other article already covers.

Edit: Looking through the edit history, it seems there used to be a single source for the article (removed for an unexplained reason) “Stokes, R.(2009) eMarketing: The Essential Guide to Online Marketing, Second Edition, Quirk eMarketing (Pty) Ltd, pp 86” Not sure if a single reference is enough to warrant an article though.

(And I’m not sure if that citation is even a reliable source, or even talks about “usage data”. Can someone check that?) ApexParagon (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That book is available on-line. Page 89 supports nothing of the sort. However, this began as a straight copy of page 272. Unsurprisingly, 2010 is when the third edition of the book came out and this is not the only page where Dikshin23 (talk · contribs) just copied parts of the book into Wikipedia. Special:Permalink/403319339 is page 365. We shouldn't waste more time on this than the article creator expended in copying it out of a marketing book under a useless title. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hakkari Expedition 1916

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

The article relies on a single primary source, and its tone is unbalanced. For a long time, no additional sources were added, and it is difficult to find references for such a minor battle. Although the Assyrians retreated during this battle, it is still considered a victory because the source comes from a book written by one of the Assyrian leaders who participated in the war. However, the part stating that the Assyrians retreated has been removed. Here is the old version of the article [1]. Sikorki (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sikorki (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Iraq, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada Lynx

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nevada Lynx

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS, this team did almost nothing before folding, not to mention all the sources about the team, which were brief of the team, have pretty much faded. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, American football, and Nevada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If sourcing isn't found, merge to 2012 American Indoor Football season. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. doesn't have enough proper sources to establish notability. Darkm777 (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Indoor Football#Former teams per nom. Fails GMG due to lack of SIGCOV. Frank Anchor 14:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different Redirect/Merge Proposed target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Anood Al Obaidly

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

I don't think this person is notable enough. I couldn't find enough reliable sources to prove its notability فيصل (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and United Arab Emirates. فيصل (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be a lot of coverage already in the article. I will check through it and add more info from it to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY based on the work by RebeccaGreen. Good job so far! Bearian (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject fails WP:ARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. The sources are not the reliable sourcing needed. Much of the coverage is local and within that, many sources are announcements of exhibitions, including student exhibitions. Several sources are "pay to play", membership required for listing, etc. Quantity does not equal quality. WP:TOOSOON. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All Nations Party of British Columbia

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

Article topic fails WP:ORG. The party is defunct and achieved insignificant results in the one election it fielded candidates in (0.21% of the popular vote, less than 7% in ridings it contested).

The article was previously PRODed in 2020 but deproded by Spinningspark with the explanation: "This is more than the usual joke/personal soapbox minor party. It needs a more thorough discussion before deleting, and some evidence of WP:BEFORE". I looked through Google (general web search), Google Books, Google Scholar, and my university databases (local to BC) for reliable sources and found no in-depth coverage. The only content about the party that has survived on the web is non-in-depth public records from the provincial government (i.e. date registered, deregistered, etc.).

I found this article by a local Indigenous publisher, but the coverage does not include a claim of notability. The coverage is quite routine and is a basic breakdown of the party's ambitions. Yue🌙 02:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Yue🌙 02:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Westphalia Township, Shelby County, Iowa

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

Westphalia Township, Shelby County, Iowa does not even meet WP:GNG Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has White 1915, pp. 114–115 in one county history (reaching back to when it was known as Sumner Township) and Dunbar 1889, p. 238 in the other, both specifically on the township, as well as other information dotted throughout those. Then there are things like the Iowa Secretary of State publishing population and housing statistics for Iowa broken down by township. Uncle G (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Secretary of State information on statistics isn't in-depth discussion of the townships and doesn't make them notable, and clicking those links brings me back to this page. The link text doesn't even give enough information for a person to try to track them down to see the coverage. Why not add them to the pages as sources, so the sources can justify the pages' existence? That would cost about the same amount of effort as having posted here but the benefit would be greater.. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Union Township, Shelby County, Iowa

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

Union Township, Shelby County, Iowa does not even meet WP:GNG Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has White 1915, p. 218 in one county history and Dunbar 1889, p. 238 in the other, both specifically on the township, as well as other information dotted throughout those. Then there are things like the Iowa Secretary of State publishing population and housing statistics for Iowa broken down by township. Uncle G (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Secretary of State information on statistics isn't in-depth discussion of the townships and doesn't make them notable, and clicking those links brings me back to this page. The link text doesn't even give enough information for a person to try to track them down to see the coverage. Why not add them to the pages as sources, so the sources can justify the pages' existence? That would cost about the same amount of effort as having posted here but the benefit would be greater.. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Township, Shelby County, Iowa

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

Shelby Township, Shelby County, Iowa does not even meet WP:GNG Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has White 1915, pp. 216–217 in one county history and Dunbar 1889, pp. 237–238 in the other, both specifically on the township, as well as other information dotted throughout those. Then there are things like the Iowa Secretary of State publishing population and housing statistics for Iowa broken down by township. Uncle G (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Secretary of State information on statistics isn't in-depth discussion of the townships and doesn't make them notable, and clicking those links brings me back to this page. The link text doesn't even give enough information for a person to try to track them down to see the coverage. Why not add them to the pages as sources, so the sources can justify the pages' existence? That would cost about the same amount of effort as having posted here but the benefit would be greater.. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Polk Township, Shelby County, Iowa

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

Polk Township, Shelby County, Iowa does not even meet WP:GNG Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has White 1915, p. 122 in one county history and Dunbar 1889, p. 237 in the other, both specifically on the township, as well as other information dotted throughout those. Then there are things like the Iowa Secretary of State publishing population and housing statistics for Iowa broken down by township. Uncle G (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Secretary of State information on statistics isn't in-depth discussion of the townships and doesn't make them notable, and clicking those links brings me back to this page. The link text doesn't even give enough information for a person to try to track them down to see the coverage. Why not add them to the pages as sources, so the sources can justify the pages' existence? That would cost about the same amount of effort as having posted here but the benefit would be greater.. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umm Aktham

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

I don't think this person is notable enough. I couldn't find enough reliable sources to prove its notability. فيصل (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Qatar. فيصل (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Of all nation-states, Qatar has the lowest proportion of women biographies: under 8%, according to humaniki. It feels like there's some WP:Systemic bias here, which was why I created the page. Dsp13 (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found and added several sources, which are overviews of Arab women writers and literature, tertiary sources rather than secondary. The content within them about this writer is short, but the fact that they include her, and the way they write about her writing, leads me to think that secondary sources exist. The last source currently in the article, at magazine.jouhina.com, is unfortunately a deadlink and not archived (as far as I have been able to find). From what I can see on the Wayback Machine of other articles in that magazine, it would have included critique of her writing, by the author of the article and others, and biographical detail, and would certainly count as SIGCOV. Perhaps a WP editor will have access to it offline. I have tried googling her Arabic name (I do not read or speak Arabic!), and there is one source the title of which translates as Writers from the Arabian Gulf, with the content described as "Arab authors; women Arab authors; Persian Gulf countries; biography." Even if I could read Arabic, only a snippet view is available on Google Books, but if anyone has access to أدباء وأديبات من الخليج العربي offline, it may also be useful. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Township, Shelby County, Iowa

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

Lincoln Township does not meet even WP:GNG Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has White 1915, p. 218 in one county history and Dunbar 1889, p. 237 in the other, both specifically on the township, as well as other information dotted throughout those. Then there are things like the Iowa Secretary of State publishing population and housing statistics for Iowa broken down by township. Uncle G (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Secretary of State information on statistics isn't in-depth discussion of the townships and doesn't make them notable, and clicking those links brings me back to this page. The link text doesn't even give enough information for a person to try to track them down to see the coverage. Why not add them to the pages as sources, so the sources can justify the pages' existence? That would cost about the same amount of effort as having posted here but the benefit would be greater... Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Yeong-gil

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. A search for sources did not yield anything. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and South Korea. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as usual there are lots of translation issues, but I'm finding coverage, for example: "京畿(경기)2연패 京釜(경부) 역전경주 조선일보 | 1987.11.24 기사(뉴스)" [京畿(Gyeonggi)2nd consecutive defeat 京釜(Gyeongbu) reverse race]. newslibrary.naver.com (in Korean). [The best player of this tournament was Kim Young-gil (Daegu). ◇Comprehensive record(Seoul~Busan 4882.8km(km))=1Gyeonggi 24h23min40sec2경North24h36min34sec3Seoul 24h48min39sec4Daegu24h53min51sec5 Jeonbuk 24h...] See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chae Hong-nak for an example of a similar AfD made recently. --Habst (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources in Korean language. 109.38.153.179 (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paolo Bediones per nom 120.29.77.53 (talk) 08:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh??? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  also confused by this redirect vote. LibStar (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Usamah

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject is not notable and there is no real possibility of an encyclopaedic entry for him. I can find no sustained coverage of the subject himself—media coverage consistently frames his views, not him, as the primary subject. Given WP:CRITICISM—and that this is a BLP—I believe this content should be removed from Eng Wikipedia. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject has received extensive media coverage, meeting Wikipedia's WP:GNG criteria. His influence in religious discourse, as well as the controversies surrounding his teachings, have been the focus of in-depth investigative journalism.

"Undercover Mosque". Channel 4. 15 January 2007. This documentary exposed Abu Usamah's inflammatory rhetoric, including advocating for the punishment of homosexuals and expressing extremist views against non-Muslims.

"Tolerance and Extremism". The Guardian. 4 February 2007. Abu Usamah's divisive ideology has been scrutinized by media, highlighting concerns over radicalization within communities.

"Abu Usamah at-Thahabi". Counter Extremism Project. The Counter Extremism Project has profiled Abu Usamah, detailing his history of hate speech, calls for violence, and controversial remarks about Western society.

"Why has the BBC removed its programme about the Islamists at City University?". The Jewish Chronicle. A detailed examination of Abu Usamah's homophobic statements and his role in the broader debate over Islamist extremism in the UK.

This extensive coverage from credible sources underscores the subject’s prominence and impact on public discourse. Given the depth of reporting, the article meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Rimesodom (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rimesodom: None of these are detailed, sustained coverage of the subject. As I said in the nomination, it is coverage of his views. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 15:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchup.com

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

No evidence of any notability for this 2016 stub. Searches reveal advertising and social media sites only. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and England. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Party of British Columbia

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

Absence of reliable, in-depth coverage of both the 2001–2009 party, which this article's scope was originally limited to, and the 2023–present party, details of which were added after Freedom Party of British Columbia (2023) was deleted following a discussion (thus an attempt to circumvent the deletion process). Both parties were insignificant in the provincial elections they contested in, garnering less than a thousandth of a percent of the popular vote and barely exceeding 1 percent of a riding's vote in their best results.

The sources cited for the 2023 iteration of the party focus on the anti-SOGI advocacy of the party leader as one part of the much wider anti-SOGI movement in Surrey, British Columbia. The party is not covered in-depth nor the focus. Yue🌙 23:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Yue🌙 23:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~or Draftify (ATD) only if COI issues are resolved.~~ The article really needs a "Do OVER". Everything in the "Election results" section was deleted as a BLP violation. Concerns: The article was previously deleted. Although created by Kevintoronto, 28.3% of the content was edited by Amrit.Birring. There seems to be an obvious conflict of interest. Draft:Freedom Party of British Columbia 2023 has been submitted to WP:AFC, which will likely suffer the same issues as it has been declined publication several times. NOTE: The subject does have some notability. A minority party can create a conundrum in those political circles. The party and apparent COI editor did show up with candidates and results in Surrey North, Surrey-Newton, and likely more. The party has a platform and, as of March 2025, was listed among "Registered Political Parties". For inquiring minds. -- Otr500 (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I removed "draftify". The sources: I could not find significant and independent reliable sources, that at least is "mainly" about the "party that was". My comments above accidentally crossed up the defunct party with the 2023 party. While a defunct corporation can be temporarily "revived" (under certain conditions), no sources show that a defunct political party can be revived. The party, which will inevitably involve names of living persons, requires better sources for compliance.

Current sources:

1)- Magher, Jennifer is a non-English source that is about Counter-protesters for LGBTQ+ rights and opposition protesters demanding the removal of policies that integrate sexual orientation and gender identity into B.C. schools.
2)- Thayarapan, Arrthy is more about "Opponents of sexual orientation and gender-identity policies bring Surrey school board meeting to halt"
3)- [a] more about clashes, [b] "Petition filed to recall Surrey MLA Rachna Singh", [c] "Protesters clash in Surrey over SOGI in B.C. schools"
4)- Bower, Angela, "Protesters clash in Surrey over SOGI in B.C. schools"
5)- Burns, Anna, "Saturday’s anti-SOGI protest in Surrey was a missed opportunity to educate, says Surrey teacher" more protests and a missed opportunity.

The creating editor might have missed that this is a political piece. This, in my opinion, places it in the middle of What Wikipedia is Not. "NOT" a place for promotion, advocacy, place to right great wrongs, a place to advance political causes, a newspaper, and certainly not a political battleground. Such articles must be written neutrally. While a political pundit could attempt to argue away some of these, it only takes one to justify removal.-- Otr500 (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: I didn't even catch the possible COI edits. Seems to me like the article for the 2023–present party was deleted after a discussion (as noted above) and the article's creator (possibly the leader himself), just moved some of the content to this nomination's article, which was originally just about the 2001–2009 party. As you pointed out though, most of the existing sources are about the political protests relevant to (but not focused on) the leader of the 2023–present party. Remove that and all the COI edits, and you're left with nothing of significance for either iteration of the party name. Yue🌙 22:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted two inappropriate closes by an IP editor. Aydo h8^[contribs] 02:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aydoh8, Thank you. You are right about nothing being left if all the problematic sources and edits were deleted. I dig pretty deep, trying to prove that an article has merit to remain. My laptop was getting old and would bog down after sometimes opening three browsers and around 40 to 60 tabs, so I purchased a new PC. I removed the ATD not just because of the COI (an issue and the user has had previous notification), but I agree there appears to be some side-stepping. I didn't dig into any COI timelines. Some people don't know. If someone has been advised and made edits, it is usually caught. There is a Username policy and an organization leader, not even counting if they are an SPA, might end up with someone curious looking at the "User creation log" unnumbered (Bulleted) #4. Whew! Since I am not an Admin, I will bail out of this before I get a migraine. Again, thanks. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Gitomer

AfDs for this article:

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

I am not sure if he is notable. Most of sources seem to be either primary or only tangentially related to him. I am unsure whether he meets WP:CREATIVE; points 3 and 4 are relevant. I am not sure if the attention he got was critical and whether his work has been covered in enough periodical articles. (I see [7], but not much more.) Even if The Little Red Book of Selling had made him notable, he would seem to be a bit too BLP1E-ish, as the rest of the coverage is more-or-less trivial or primary. Janhrach (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Business, United States of America, and Florida. Janhrach (talk) 15:15, 28 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 23:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see plenty of good sources. I remember the incident that lead to his being banned from the airline, so BLP1E doesn't apply. There are issues with the article, but they can be resolved through ordinary editing. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: Do you think he meets points 3 or 4 of WP:CREATIVE? I did not express that well, but WP:CREATIVE was intended to be the main point of my nom. I am willing to withdraw this nom if there is a convincing argument that he does. Janhrach (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that he meets factor #3 as having written several related books. Bearian (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but it also says that:

In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);

I don't see multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, but I haven't really done a thorough search. Like I have written, I have found [8], but the other articles I have found were blogs (or similar), not articles from periodicals. Janhrach (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (may return with !vote) This is a typical promotional article for someone whose main skill is promoting. He writes those books a friend of mine calls "business porn": which promise great wealth not unlike that of megachurch leaders. I removed some irrelevant promotional statements, but there are undoubtedly more. I am not sure that the speaking awards (e.g. "Certified Speaking Professional (CSP) Award") are of value because the organization appears to be a speakers' bureau. Two of the book awards (IPPY) are indeed awards but he is among other winners, in one case one of 66. A fairly snide article in Time magazine was used for one "cute" quote but ignored 4 paragraphs of negative review of his work. (I fixed some of that.) The reviews by Jack Covert seem to be in a personal blog, albeit a pretty ambitious one. His books have sold many copies, and I can see some presence in library collections. I confess that I have little regard for this category of output, along with all of the self-help books. I just thought I should be honest about my prejudice. Lamona (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qaseem Haider

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

Unreliable sources, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, and mentions. Anything that does seem promising is either non-bylined, a paid press piece, or unreliable source. CNMall41 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Bihar, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The subject meets WP:GNG. Sources like Hindustan Times (1), DNA India (2), The Times of India (3), Jagran (4), and Firstpost (5) provide significant coverage, establishing notability. These are reliable, independent sources that address concerns about unreliable sources and paid content. The articles offer more than mere mentions, detailing the subject's career and contributions MH-wiki2025 (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DNA India is the only one I see that talks about the subject and does not rely on information provided about the subject (non-independent). --CNMall41 (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject meets Wikipedia:GNG. IdanST (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Progress, Oregon

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

Completely uncited article. No sources could be found, and only one is cited (a weather website), thus no notability. Typically, neighborhoods are not notable on their own. Propose merging into other city pages. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 19:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Oregon. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you want is McArthur & McArthur 1992, p. 692, Progress harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMcArthurMcArthur1992 (help), which traces post-office → crossroads → part of suburbia. Uncle G (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- McArthur, Lewis Ankeny; McArthur, Lewis L. (1992). McArthur, Lewis L. (ed.). Oregon Geographic Names (6th ed.). Oregon Historical Society Press. ISBN 9780875952369.
- I'm unclear what you mean. What is your vote? Or are you commenting? thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uncle G never(?) leaves bolded words, which is fine, but I too thought "traces post-office → crossroads → part of suburbia" was a bit cryptic. I guess it means "traces the settlement's history from having a post-office, being located at a crossroads, to becoming a part of suburbia due to adjacent growth". In that sense, neighbourhoods might be notable as former "independent" settlements. Anyway, if anyone has the source, the source would speak for itself. Geschichte (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly. Now that it's been cited its up to people to evaluate it; and indeed see whether, now that the obfuscating "unincorporated community" and the vague recentist "neighborhood" from the article are out of the way, there's more to be found. The next step after a placenames book is usually a search of the county histories. I still have over 50 county histories in Indiana awaiting my attention, thanks to Mangoe. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a discussion, not a vote. Uncle G (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neighbourhoods have to pass GNG, this one does not, and a BEFORE search was not helpful. However if there's proof this was an independent settlement at some point (or better sourcing) I'd be willing to reconsider. SportingFlyer T·C 06:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment I've updated the article with better coordinates from GNIS, which places it at the intersection NNE of the originally supplied spot. On the one hand it does show as a knot of buildings in older topos, but this is in the context of it being surrounded a thicket of similar named spots. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The nominator mentions a possible Merge but doesn't identify what articles this one should be Merged into.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operational intelligence

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

18-year-old article that reads far more like an essay, is devoid of sources or further reading materials, has no substantial improvements over the years. Effectively unsalvageable even though the term itself is notable and important. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This doesn't look bad enough to justify WP:TNT to me. The subject trivially meets WP:GNG, as the nomination notes. Per WP:ATD, the existing content can be stubbified in favor of deletion if improvements are not forthcoming. Suriname0 (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless someone comes forward to try to rescue this mess, I'm afraid that it's better to start over. Ping me if you're making a real effort. Bearian (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not a substitute for cleanup. Nomination indicates the term is notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I agree with the sentiment that the term itself is notable and important, the problem is the term's broadness. It's not a specific thing, like a book. It's possible to write prose describing this term in different ways. The definition may be substantively different from person to person, industry to industry. I'd argue that due to the lack of any sourcing to support it's current definition that the current state of the article is functionally WP:OR. In this way, while WP:N dictates that The absence of sources or citations in a Wikipedia article <...> does not indicate that a subject is not notable... editors are strongly encouraged to... consider the possibility that sources may still exist, I think the encyclopedia is benefited more with deletion and allowing an interested editor start from scratch (and some sources). I toyed with the idea of trying to find a source to swap to a Keep vote to stubify, but I admit I don't believe I have the research skill for such a non-specific term. —Sirdog (talk) 06:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Bird (song)

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

NN song: I changed this to a redirect to the album from which it comes, but was reverted by article creator. Seeking a wider consensus. TheLongTone (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -

Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. - via WP:NMG.

The approach should be to improve documents by allowing other users to contribute and add more information on it, per WP:BEFORE, rather than simply removing it just because it does not adhere to regulations. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 14:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No inherent problems aside from being a relatively obscure single. Agreed with Camila. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment As mentioned, an obscure single. It would be absurd to maintau=in than every song ever recorded merits an article; in most case (including this one) what there is to say about it can readily be includee in the articler on the album on which it appears. The actual content of this article is almost zero.TheLongTone (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to All My Demons Greeting Me as a Friend. Per WP:NSONG, "If the only coverage of a song [or single] occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." I can find a little about this song outside reviews of the album, but not enough to constitute SIGCOV. This book in Ukrainian [9] has a para which translates in part as "AURORA in the visual composition “Winter Bird”. Her “tears are forever frozen”, because she is in a state of permafrost and does not know how to cry and who can give her this sensuality to cry. However, intuitively she ..." (per Google Translate - I do not read Ukrainian). This book in German [10] about drones has a sentence about the video accompanying the single, in which drones build a cocoon around the singer. Of the sources in the article, 1 has a full sentence about this song on the album, and 2 others have half a sentence about it, also in reviews of the full length album. So not enough for its own article, as far as I can see. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album page All My Demons Greeting Me as a Friend. The sources talking about the song are doing so in the context of the album. No sources are dedicated to the song, discussing it in depth. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, opinion divided between Keep and Merge/Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gervais (psychologist)

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

Previously deleted and salted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Gervais * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Psychology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Michael Gervais meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO as a notable psychologist specializing in high-performance mindset training. He has been featured in major publications like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Forbes, demonstrating significant coverage in reliable sources. As co-founder of Compete to Create and a consultant for elite athletes and organizations, his work has had a substantial impact. His podcast, Finding Mastery, further establishes his influence in the field. Given the depth of coverage and professional significance, he meets Wikipedia’s notability standards. Mercurydry (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and note to closer: the title Michael Gervais is WP:SALTED to admin only. So in case, this was kept, kindly move the page (for non-admins, kindly make a request on WP:RM/T) to the said title as this current title includes unnessesary disambiguator. Thanks and no opinion on the AFD. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The WSJ story contains sigcov, along with this Outside story. There's also some coverage in this half-interview. I note that the article was originally deleted due to copyvio, not notability, then deleted several times because it was blatant promotion. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article creator has been CU-blocked. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]