Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

14 February 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

< February 13	February 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Death of Mihir Ahammed

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. While this recent incident has received local media attention, the subject doesn't meet any criteria of WP:EVENT. It's a tragedy, but unfortunately a common occurrence. BusterD (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Schools, and Kerala. BusterD (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd be inclined to lean delete, however the widespread coverage of the event and the statement from the Indian Congress means this could be notable soon. I think this would fail WP:EVENTCRIT at this time, but if there were changes in legislation or other changes made to Indian schools in the coming weeks, this would thus become notable under the same criteria. For example, the Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons is a similarly tragic event which became notable because of the ensuing inquiry and creation of new cyber bullying legislation. Kylemahar902 (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This wouldn't pass the 10YR test, this is a rather simple death of a non-notable individual. I can't see this as being more than a shocking news story that no one will remember is 6mths. Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This recent incident has received national media attention [1][2][3],[4] and the police have confirmed that it was a Suicide

death due to Ragging, and there is a reference to the evidence, and the topic meets the criteria for WP:EVENT. This is not a common occurrence. An incident that is likely to be a model or catalyst for something else of lasting importance is likely to be noteworthy WP:LASTING. School ragging laws are likely to change because of this, as the police have taken up the case and the case is being heard in court[5]. Spworld2 (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely TOOSOON then. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep To be honest, this strikes me as no different than the dozens of North American articles that we have about high-profile youth suicides/deaths that come after intense bullying. See e.g. Suicide of Rodney Hulin, Suicide of Nicola Ann Raphael, Suicide of Jamey Rodemeyer, Suicide of Amanda Todd, Death of Conrad Roy, Death of Nex Benedict. Each of those articles have enduring notability because of (a) the socially shocking or surprising type of bullying that preceded the death [sexual violence in juvenile detention, anti-goth bullying, anti-gay bullying, grooming & cyberbullying, female to male domestic partner abuse, and transphobic bullying respectively], and (b) widespread social and political response as a result. The backlash and social pressure campaign around "ragging" is generating an equal, if not more notable, social response than any of the above-mentioned suicides. If we selectively delete this article, we'd be maintaining a dramatically higher threshold of notability for South Asian youth suicides than for North America. Flip^and Flopped ツ 16:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Please provide a valid reason this should be kept. BusterD (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the user has provided the reason. There was also this essay I don't remember name of, which tells not to cite all policies and guidelines here and and there. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor _{Ping Me🔔} 07:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The user has made a speech giving their opinion about what we should do in this general circumstance. They haven't presented one refutation of how this page fails NEVENT. BusterD (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merely listing policies and guidelines is discouraged on XfDs, I'll agree. Quoting and applying relevant guidelines and policies (as I have done) is expected. The Hindu reports over 10,000 suicides in Kerala in each of the last three years. Roughly 27 every day. More than one every hour. Unfortunately, suicide is a common occurrence in Kerala (and worldwide), and suicide after bullying is one of the major categories. I assert there's no sources presented or applied which make this case more than just a run of the mill tragedy. Wikipedia is not a daily newspaper. We have no evidence presented this case will lead to any broader change in local attitudes or laws. The burden of proof (on notability and verifiability) is on the contributors who wish to keep this article. BusterD (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see contributors here have recently merged a summary of this event over to the list of Indian incidents at Ragging, so this unfortunate loss may yet help provide a case for others. I will watch that page and help defend the insertion, if possible. Thank you. BusterD (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge more into ragging, then redirect. That's an appropriate context. This incident is all too common, akin to school shootings in the United States. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As nominator, I'm never adverse to alternatives to deletion. I see another sub-section Ragging#Major_incidents about Sri Lanka which lists incidents with inline citation. Perhaps merging this material the parallel subsection may be a way to utilize (and better organize) coverage to improve the Ragging page. BusterD (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Suicide is common in the world, and in India too, But this Suicide was preceded by a socially shocking or surprising type of brutal Hazing and ragging, Racism, resulting in a widespread social and political response. (Important political response: Leaders of the Opposition(India), Leader of the in Lok Sabha and Indian National Congress) The backlash and social pressure campaign surrounding "ragging" creates a social response that is equal to, and more significant than, any other social response. Even before this, the interactions caused by Hazing and ragging have been maintained, for example : Rohith Vemula, Suicide of Fathima Latheefand Suicide of Payal Tadvi etc..~~ Spworld2 (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the page creator, you are certainly welcome to all your opinions. Do you have anything to add to this discussion which is based in policy or sources? BusterD (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EVENT To pass There are significant and reliable sources (References),

sources:- TOI-Ref [6][7][8][9]

Deccan Herald-Ref:-[10] [11]

NDTV--Ref:-[12][13][14]

India Today--Ref:- [15]

The Economic Times--Ref:- [16]

The New Indian Express--Ref:- [17][18][19]

Mathrubhumi:-[20][21][22][23][24]

Republic TV :- [25]

Other:-[26][27][28][29]

Sorry for re-reading any references Spworld2 (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A list of sources is not an argument. BusterD (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The arguments for Keep seem to lack P&G basis, but I still don't see consensus to delete or merge with Ragging, where the subject is already briefly covered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Akpan Inyang-Etoh

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

Could not find sources on a BEFORE search. Seems to have been written by someone close to the subject. Princess of Ara 12:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 12:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hadron epoch

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

This topic is not notable. Modern cosmology textbooks do not use it. Google ngram view says no ngrams. One primary source says "hadronic epoch". One primary reference with few citations mention term, that is not enough for an article. Already tried PROD. Please see Talk:Hadron epoch for additional information. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a term that is notable for this event is the "quark-hadron phase transition", but there's no page for that on Wikipedia. (There is a page for: cosmological phase transition.) Praemonitus (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and I suppose we could rename Hardon epoch -> quark-hadron phase transition, but I think filling out cosmological phase transition first makes more sense. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, that makes sense. However, this behavior is also theorized to occur within neutron stars, so a separate article may be appropriate at some point. Praemonitus (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note that there is also a QCD matter page. Aseyhe (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am a cosmologist and have not encountered this term outside Wikipedia (aside from non-expert sources who likely learnt it from Wikipedia). Even just looking at the physics, there is not a meaningful hadron epoch. Pions briefly contribute to the primordial plasma at temperatures between the QCD phase transition at 170 MeV and the pion mass of ~135 MeV, but even during that time period they only contribute a small fraction of the total energy density. This is even brief enough that there's no clear beginning or end -- the effective number of degrees of freedom drops continuously and rapidly throughout this period (see e.g. figure 2 of arXiv:1204.3622 [30]). Aseyhe (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on scope @Johnjbarton: @Aseyhe: If this term actually does not exist, can we delete it across the other language Wikipedia's too? Being made in 2006, the article is I think in 17 different languages now. If this article simply isn't notable enough, however, that's different, and it should just be deleted here. Johnson524 16:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I can't answer your question. I am asserting that the term is not notable and we should delete this article. The term "exists" in that the article exists and there are blogs with the term. That's all I know. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are tonnes of physics sources that talk about the QCD phase transition, and really we don't do it justice, especially as we don't mention the figure $10 -5 seconds$ anywhere, which is a rather basic number to mention. However, there are also quite a number of books on cosmology that talk about the hadron era (not "hadron epoch") and the lepton era (not "lepton epoch") and the radiation era and the reality is that by blindly searching for the article title and counting Google hits, rather than actually knowing what to look for, you are looking for the wrong thing.
For just three examples: Josip Kleczek's The Universe (ISBN 9789401014854) has a "Chronology of the universe" section in chapter 5 that goes "Hadron Era" → "Lepton Era" → "Radiation Era". A book from last century, Goldberg' and Scadron' Physics of Stellar Evolution and Cosmology (ISBN 9780677217406) in chapter 7 has the same "Hadron Era" → "Lepton Era" → "Radiation Era" progression. Coming back to the 21st century the Springer Fundamental Astronomy book (ISBN 9783540001799, too many editors to list) has its history of the universe section in chapter 19 and once again proceeds "Hadron Era" → "Lepton Era" → "Radiation Era" → "Matter Era".
Once you actually know a bit about the subject, and know the right things to look for, sources come out of your ears. Three books is barely scraping the surface of the available sources on these eras. Moreover, the way to fix the article, using all of these sources and the ordinary editing and page move tools, is obvious.
Uncle G (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage, and the term has practically no usage in scientific publications. Also I believe Aseyhe is right in their assessment. Artem.G (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge. Notability does not seem to be a concern. The term "Hadron era" registers in Ngrams. One can see that its use peaked in the 70s, so perhaps it is not a central concept in modern research, but one can nevertheless find it in some recent textbooks and reference works.[31][32][33][34][35] See the Internet Archive Search for "hadron era" for more. A stand-alone page is not necessary, it can be merged to Quark-hadron phase transition (does not exist yet) or some other related article like cosmological phase transition. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the ngram link. I suppose this is an argument to rename the page to "Hadron era", but sadly the "correct" usage for 'epoch' as an event and 'era' as a time span has evidently given way to these as being synonymous. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that the Springer book (Jähmefyysikko has found the 6th edition, I see; where I was reading the 4th.) talks about a time span from $10 -8 seconds$ to $10 -4 seconds$ . Uncle G (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move (I am the nominator) It clear this delete proposal will fail because two editors found references to "Hadron era" which undermine my main claim on notability. Based on this, the article should move to that title.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjbarton (talk • contribs) 15:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator has withdrawn their nomination, and is now calling for renaming the article rather than deleting it, based on sources presented by Uncle G. As others here have argued for deletion, this cannot be speedy-closed. Relisting to see if we can get consensus to retain the page under the suggested new title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shujinkou

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

No coverage from any WP:VG high-quality reliable sources. No sustained coverage from reputable outlets. Article's subject is a small title that does not meet the GNG. Removing primary sourcing from the article would leave behind a trivial amount of data and render it an eternal stub (if that); material in the infobox is not supported by citations. As an aside, the article was created by disclosed COI editor. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 11:45, 14 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 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. Disagreeing with the nomination for deletion:

Other indie titles with far less coverage, fewer sources, and less notability have been present, re: Fragoria, Elasto Mania, Holodance, . Shujinkou has been covered by various news sites and interviews in multiple languages.
The title just released today, and coverage and reviews are still coming in—it is true that the wiki page hasn't been updated with various new sources over the last few days. If the state of the page remains the exact same in 3-6 months, then the potential for deletion is warranted, but it seems a bit early.
Primary sourcing can be removed, but recent secondary sourcing with new information and press coverage seems yet to be added, see: https://sequentialplanet.com/shujinkou-the-five-year-journey-from-platformer-to-dungeon-crawling-epic/, https://ladiesgamers.com/shujinkou-early-access-impressions/, https://www.rpgsite.net/feature/14379-therpgs-2025-every-rpg-their-release-dates and more, - Edits to the page to include more sources and recent coverage is recommended.
Various material in the infobox can be supported with citations, though they seemingly haven't been added, for credits, see: https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/ps5/506578-shujinkou/credit (multiple users adjusted this, acknowledged that this is marked as an Unreliable source) and https://www.imdb.com/title/tt19244512/ as two secondary sources.

It is still too early for deletion nomination—reputable outlets are taking notice, as noted below (based on definitions in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources).

Matt Sainsbury from DigitallyDownloaded mentioned and raised attention to Shujinkou in an article just a day ago called "New releases 2-13-2025 to 2-19-2025" by Robert Allen at Tech-Gaming - https://www.tech-gaming.com/new-releases-2-13-25/, saying "Speaking of “exquisite”, “good” and “JRPG action,” I’ve also got to cheer for Shujinkou. It’s a dungeon crawler, and it’s perfectly fine on that level alone, but as Robert says, it’s also a handy learning tool, especially for those early on in their Japanese language journey. The Duolingo Owl is well and truly dead with this slice of joy out there."
Shujinkou, a role-playing game, has been mentioned by RPGamer, RPGFan, and RPG Site, all of which qualify in the Genre-specific table of Video games/Sources. Interview and news articles for RPGamer (and an incoming review), one article and a full review for RPGFan, and noting the game exists and its release date on RPG Site. All three sites bringing up the same title implies some sense of acknowledgment regarding the notability of this video game.
It has a Metacritic and Opencritic page, and as mentioned above with "it may still be early,", reviews are coming in over time (https://www.metacritic.com/game/shujinkou/, https://opencritic.com/game/18105/shujinkou)
Not necessarily reputable per se, but a full review in another language, Hungarian, with an 8/10 rating: https://www.gamekapocs.hu/cikk/4684/shujinkou_teszt

Warm regards Julian Michael Rice (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Highlighting that the above is the disclosed COI editor. I do not believe these sources constitute "sustained coverage". At the very least, this article was made WP:TOOSOON by someone with a financial interest in the game's performance. While this review is ongoing, I will remove primary sources. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 13:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FilmXtra Uncut

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

My WP:BEFORE totally failed to find any coverage of either the original program or its spin off. I would have proded this, but it had been previously proded. Strangely a different article under the name FilmXtra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to have been deleted, but with a deletion that post dates the creation of Film Xtra. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and United Kingdom. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Safaei

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

Article has notability concerns since Dec 2020. Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSPERSON with passing mentions and event results. Just playing in a league/Pro volleyball club is not enough to become notable. Similar concern was expressed here for this Basketball player Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hossein Rahmati. I would like to know what other contributors think. Lekkha Moun (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Volleyball, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Jawad

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

Sad event, but a WP:BIO1E without lasting notability. Fram (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Bangladesh. Fram (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable before his death, and the tragic accident that killed him, even had it been notable in itself, would only have contributed to WP:BIO1E. Black Kite (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete

1. Asim Jawad's death had enough media coverage in Bangladesh as all of the newspaper covered his death and it was broadcast on other medias too. Provided enough source.

2. He has Sword of Honour,Bangladesh Chief of Air Staff Certificate of Appreciation Chief of Air Staff Trophy for being the best in flying which was conducted by IAF, not BAF. Also served in MONUSCO.

3. Besides, before crashing he had an opportunity to eject but he rather chose to eject at a safe place which caused his death as he was late. If he ejected at right time, he could save himself but it would result death to hundreds. For his bravery I think his article should not be deleted.

4. He was a notable officer inside Bangladesh Air Force & Bangladesh Armed Forces. Can confirm this as my own dad served in the armed forces for 29 years before going to retirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptShayan (talk • contribs) 12:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pravaig

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The references are not from reliable resources, it Lacks of WP:SIRS. B-Factor (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Karnataka. B-Factor (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OnMobile

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

Entire article based on self published and press releases. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NCORP. B-Factor (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most references are primary, press releases or profiles. Mysecretgarden (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, India, and Karnataka. B-Factor (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Lord Fine$$

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

Probably an auto-biography about a rapper no one has heard of. Clubette (call) 10:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Clubette (call) 10:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi School of Occult Sciences

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

An article about an enterprise, created by a new editor along with a new attempt to place an article on the founder (which is blocked following multiple prior deletions). The given references are primary; no evidence provided or found to indicate that this private school has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Delhi. AllyD (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2029 Indonesian presidential election

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Cited source does not even mention the 2029 election. Possibly redirect to Elections in Indonesia as an ATD. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Indonesia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not too soon, for example there is an article about 2030 United States Senate elections.

Cited sources do mention the next presidential election will be held in 2029, the election has been officially mentioned too in Constitutional Court of Indonesia decision on January 2025. Everywiki (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Strong (attorney)

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

Fails GNG. She assumed some positions at the United States Copyright Office, but none of them was extraordinary enough to confer her notability. Even if some positions she held are notable enough to have a stand-alone page, that doesn't automatically make her notable.

[36] Blog source.
[37] Routine announcement, which most people who get appointed to assume relevant federal roles usually get.
[38] Mostly Strong talking about her own work, not an independent source. Badbluebus (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and United States of America. Badbluebus (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the valid arguments made by @TJRC
Nayyn (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She didn't just assume "some positions" at the Copyright Office; she was acting Register of Copyrights, the top position, the head of the entire Copyright Office, with responsibility for all U.S. policy relating to copyright law. I know that "register" sounds like a purely ministerial title, like a county register, but it is the equivalent to a position like the head of the US Patent and Trademark Office. It's just that the USPTO head's title has changed from the mundane U.S. Commissioner of Patents to the more ornate Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, while the Copyright Office has stuck to its original title. Frankly, each of the registers in the List of registers of copyrights merits an article.

No objection to improving the sourcing.

Disclosure: I'm the editor who initially wrote the article. Frankly, I think it was better -- in content, sourcing and clarity of notability -- in its original form. I agree it should be cleaned up; but not deleted. TJRC (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy are you using to back up the notability of this topic? NPOL? If yes then they didn’t merit NPOL#1, the sources itself are neither sufficient to merit NPOL#2. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 04:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Copyright Office is very clearly a national agency; and the head of the United States Copyright Office is very clearly someone "who [has] held ... national office" by virtue of holding the office heading that agency. TJRC (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Copyright Office is a part of the Library Congress. This is what NPOL#1 says: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. Which part of NPOL here does she pass? She doesn’t pass NPOL#2 due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the basis for your confusion. Are you saying that the US Copyright Office is not a federal agency? TJRC (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holders of every federal agency is not notable; that’s not what NPOL is about. "Not every appointee (or elected position) automatically passes the bar of WP:BLP/WP:N. I would also note the language in NPOL: "are presumed to be notable" but it doesn't relieve them of the obligation in WP:GNG to have significant coverage in reliable sources. If the position was that important, it would be trivial to find SIGCOV in WP:RS, but that isn't the case. "Presumption" isn't a guarantee, it just means that it is likely you will find sources." Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per TJRC. For the record, most active Wikipedians are 2 or 3 degrees of separation from the subject via the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors member Kat Walsh, who's a mutual connection on LinkedIn and Copyright Counsel at Creative Commons. Bearian (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't necessarily understand the views above about WP:GNG. Serving non significant or perhaps public political or literary offices doesn't meets WP:NPOL. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be the head of a government corporation, doesn't seem to pass political notability. They’re a business person in the employ of the government, not a politician that's elected. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 12:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TJRC. She was also vice-president of the International Intellectual Property Alliance, and was quoted in that role in newspaper articles about laws relating to piracy of software, CDs, etc. She has also published book chapters and journal articles on copyright. I have added some refs and info to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to qualify for WP:NPOL and also doesn't match WP:GNG. Pollia (talk) 10:56, 7 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!} 06:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Acting or not, there is a single Register of Copyrights for the whole of the United States, and their legal responsibility is substantial. While the case would be stronger if this was a presidentially appointed position, it is still a nonfunctionary national office, the equivalent of an agency head. BD2412 T 22:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sources that meets the GNG are yet to be brought in for this discussion. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- As previously noted, the subject passes WP:NPOL, a WP:SNG. TJRC (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I don’t see anything anywhere. Being the head of a government agency doesn’t make one an automatic pass for NPOL. I am only seeing this rationale when it comes to agencies owned by the West. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with BD2412. Subject meets WP:NPOL. Mysecretgarden (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional input is needed to determine consensus. Please provide further discussion on the article's notability and reliability of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Afro 📢Talk! 07:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Triskell

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

Fails WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG. The only citation likely refers to this directory entry or something similar. dePRODed in 2016 with the edit summary I edited links and references. I do not see the point to say that it is an unremarkable software. It is used by companies such as Orange, La Banque Postale, Agbar, ect. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Software, and Spain. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG and no significant coverages. AgerJoy talk 08:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of substantial coverage Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yilmaz Bektaş

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO because all sources are gossip that centered on his celebrity wife who was a Miss World Contestant. Twice, the article was moved to draft space for incubation and to pass through AFC review but was moved directly back to the main space. Majority of the sources are from non WP:RS and they are all written in same format of "Who is ...", "Net Worth", "Age", "Early life", "Education", "Wife". Patre23 (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cyprus, Turkey, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It appears that his only claim to significance is his previous marriage to Ruffa Gutierrez, but notability isn't inherited. The sourcing, unfortunately, reflects this as pointed out by the nominator. I don't think a redirect would be appropriate given that there's nothing significant about Bektaş in Gutierrez's article. Yue💌 19:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. [[39]],[[40]] and [[41]] are enough to establish notability.
102.91.102.2 (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Few reliable sources are available. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 10:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. By the way, "Few reliable sources are available" is not a strong argument for a Keep. Which sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject appears notable due to his business, diplomatic roles, and UN affiliations, but the article lacks proper sourcing and structure. A rewrite with reliable citations is needed to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. -- Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Garvitpandey1522, what are some reliable sources that exist today? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The independent coverage is essentially gossip and tabloid journalism, this person is not independently notable. His position as a businessman and diplomat does not make him notable. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The current coverage is plenty to meet WP:BIO. Mysecretgarden (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chachro Raid

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

Article uses sources from only one side of the conflict, not using any neutral sources, making the article biased due to its lack of other perspectives. Eltabar243 ^Talk! 13:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Pakistan, India, and Sindh. – Eltabar243 ^Talk!
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 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:58, 7 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!} 05:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eltabar243 can you point to areas where this supposed lack of diversity of sources has led to a lack of neutrality? On my quick reading of the article it's not biased.

Note that Ikram Sehgal is cited, and he's from Pakistan. John Gill is American. D you have particular non-Indian sources that can be added?

Based on what I see, this is a Keep but I'll reconsider if good reasons are provided. Oblivy (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Eltabar243, being biased isn't a strong rationale for deletion because NPOV can be remedied through editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LeadDesk

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

The article on LeadDesk may warrant deletion if it does not provide sufficient evidence of notability under Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. Without significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, the article does not meet the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Loewstisch (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Technology, Computing, Internet, Software, Europe, and Finland. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 12:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete: I'm unable to ascertain the quality of finnish sources, but a cursory search shows that there is no WP:NCORP in english or french (while i was at it) sources. the fact this was PRODed before tells me this is probably not a very notable company, despite their impressive list of costumers.

themoon@talk:~$ 08:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal (podcast)

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

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

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

Comment - I don't know much about this podcast, aside from it being a competitor to NYT's The Daily. (i think?) In the Hollywood Reporter, I found this, and also this about another WSJ podcast called "With Great Power" which is "part of The Journal". It also appears to be an "Honoree" of a 2024 Webby Award. Limmidy (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review sources brought to this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm not sure what is happening but we have even fewer participants in AFD discussions than normal. It makes determining a consensus a challenge when there aren't many editors offering arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Wall Street Journal, I think the two hollywood reporter articles linked by Limmidy probably combine to be one item of Sigcov. here's another (ish). Would like a third to establish independent notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Furniture Confederation

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete, I never like deleting, but I can't find anyone independent writing about this organisation, only this organisation doing its job: lobbying/raising awareness of issues. In effect, no sourcing, nothing to summarise, and if the reader wants to know about it, a google search and the organisation's own website will serve them better than our article. Elemimele (talk) 17:03, 7 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!} 04:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ORG and no significant coverages. AgerJoy talk 08:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No SIGCOV found. There was apparently a British Furniture Confederation in 1944, until sometime in the 1950s or early 1960s ... I can find more mention of that in digitised newspapers than of this one. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:36, 14 February 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.

Eva Vik

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Czech Republic, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What about the awards here? Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from above "Lots of awards but none are major." There are a LOT of festivals, award ceremonies, award farms, whatevers that hand out or sell a lot of awards, at times making up categories so they can give everyone an award. Listing awards is not enough, they has to be something significant about them. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree that this is an attempt at WP:PROMO but I don’t agree with the impression that winning awards is insignificant. I have no opinion on the notability of this topic in question and would not !vote. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't agree with an argument that hasn't been presented. That's useful. Good for you. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Duffbeerforme, no need to be snarky to an editor who took the time to consider your proposal. We need to encourage participation here at AFD, of all kinds.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Passes WP:GNG with coverage from Deadline (by Zac Ntim et. al.) and Vogue (Czech), with the most significant coverage in the LA Weekly and the Wonderland Magazine references. I acknowledge these latter sources have a entertainment publication-style tone but haven't seen any conversation on talk pages that they don't count towards notability, especially LA Weekly. Nnev66 (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note - that LA Weekly bit is from a known spamming PR/SEO flack. It's a 'guest post' that's not marked as paid placement. Also note that the international "branded" franchises of reliable sources like Vogue or Forbes are often pretty sketchy. There's a lot of unearned media in play in this article as it is. Sam Kuru (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source review would be helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Brandon Field

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

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

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

He plays young Daniel Molloy in interview with the vampire which is a significant role within the show and will likely be expanded upon as the series continues. Interview with the vampire doesn't have that many episodes a season but he's had a starring role in two of them so far. Including the episode that was tipped for EMMY nomination

https://collider.com/interview-with-the-vampire-season-2-episode-5-luke-brandon-field/

https://www.thewrap.com/interview-with-the-vampire-daniel-molloy-luke-brandon-field-interview/ Thewandaverse (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thewandaverse. While his role is supporting, it's clearly a significant role that has garnered media coverage. I would say the same for some of his other recent projects. Starklinson (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here to agree with Thewandaverse. The character of Daniel Molloy will become more significant in the next seasons. Field is also often sent out for promotional purposes for interviews. He appeared at the Saturn Awards show as a representative of the show (Interview With the Vampire) on February 2, 2025. Sierraalphagolf (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source review would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Non notable. Father is a producer and does not star in significant roles. Most articles are not from reliable sources and the winehouse hologram piece is because of his father. Most roles are shorts. Just Isn't notable enough to be on wikipedia. 2600:1700:B2D:83A0:E1B2:18A4:5BD7:CA27 (talk) 01:03, 12 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!} 04:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of documents released by the Department of Government Efficiency

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

this article is based on X posts by Department of Government Efficiency and is thus inherently unreliable soibangla (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Every source is a reliable source. At the time of AfD start, the article had 14 sources, five of which are sources from X, specifically DOGE primary sources. However, the article had nine secondary reliable sources, including The New York Times, TIME Magazine, and Business Insider. Nomination reason was "article is based on X posts", which has now been proven false as there is indeed RS for this. Primary sources on X do not justify deletion, especially U.S. government sources. Posts on X by the National Weather Service / press released by the National Weather Service are often cited on weather articles. X posts can also be cited on Wikipedia, including in GA articles (ex. 2023 Pasadena–Deer Park tornado passed GAN with a X post source). No valid reason for deletion. I am not opposed to a potential merge into the main DOGE article only if consensus falls in the direction of "delete" or "merge". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge to DOGE article) but not due to reliability. Fails WP:NLIST / WP:NOTNEWS. The documents are not discussed as a group, and even if they were would not have lasting relevance. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia Girls

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

After a BEFORE on author Lee Welles, the book series (Gaia Girls), and the individual books in the series (Enter the Earth and Way of Water), I do not think this series meets NBOOK. I have searched for reviews through Google, Google Scholar, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, Kirkus Reviews, JSTOR, and ProQuest. I found one review on Kirkus (cited in the article) and potentially a review in Earth Action Network [42], but I don't have access to the article. Welles has passing mention in Digital Citizenship in Twenty-First-Century Young Adult Literature and an article in PW, but the first doesn't mention the books and neither provide SIGCOV. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are some OK news sources [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] but they are all very local which I am not sure is great for this kind of thing, especially since they call her "local author" and stuff. They're also not much in the way of commentary/reviews. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Found a couple of reviews: This is from Children's Bookwatch, but it's a bit short. The article from EAN mentioned by Significa should be accessible here and is a bit longer. There's also a review in Refrigerated & Frozen Foods Retailer, magazine of some sort, (here) for some reason, but I have no clue whether it's legitimate or not given that it seems a bit unusual. I wouldn't count the Kirkus Review though, since it's from their Indie reviews program. Regardless, I think there's barely enough coverage here, combined with the news sources above, to meet NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I have to echo the weak keep. I found two reviews searching using my old college's database. One was what I believe to be the Faces (online community) and the other was from the Earth Action Network. I don't have access anymore, so if anyone with access to EBSCO could check, that would be great. I also found that it won a minor award. It doesn't appear to be a vanity award - it's sponsored by Idaho State University for one. It just isn't a very major award. I'm undecided if it could count towards notability or not - at the very least it's not enough to warrant a keep on that alone. There are a few outlets that have reported lists of winners (like Outdoor Magazine), so it might count towards notability. It just won't be a very strong source. I also concur on Kirkus Indie not being a usable source - it's a pay to play deal so they're not discerning in the slightest when it comes to their indie reviews. I honestly don't have a high opinion of their non-paid reviews either - DGG was very vocal about them not having the greatest editorial oversight or practices, so I try not to use them in general. (Rest in Peace, DGG.)

All in all, not enough for a slam dunk keep but enough for maybe a weak keep. The series doesn't look to have really managed to gain widespread traction, which is a shame because the books look lovely, but it's how it goes sometimes. I won't argue if the ultimate decision is to delete. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ReaderofthePack: The Earth Action Network should be accessible via TWL link I posted above. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The review from Faces is from a 16-year-old, so I wouldn't count it either. Should also be accessible via TWL here: https://eds-p-ebscohost-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=41508692-60cb-4fe8-a215-6c8a083cc9c9%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=31802420&db=f6h ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting given the Weak Keeps.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if ever I !voted weak keep this would be it. I didn't find anything in addition to that cited above, but local sources and the couple reviews probably just about pushes this into the realm of notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BR Battle of Britain class 34073 249 Squadron

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

This individual preserved steam locomotive failed WP:GNG. I was unable to find reliable independent sources with significant coverage. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lonesome Suzie

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

Poorly referenced article about a song; fails WP:GNG. My WP:BEFORE yielded nothing except passing mentions like [49] (that's one of the better ones - half a sentence...). If nobody can find anything else, maybe per WP:ATD-R, redirect this to the album it appears in, Music from Big Pink? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Canada. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and discuss in that article, if needed. There does not seem to be significant information from reliable secondary sources available on specifically this song. Z. Patterson (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a lot of the material is from album reviews (albeit from 2 different albums by two different groups) but there is enough material from books to meet GNG. If not kept, sourced material needs to be merged to the two albums the song is on. Rlendog (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There also used to be a review of the song by Nick DeRiso at https://somethingelsereviews.com/2013/08/22/across-the-great-divide-the-band-lonesome-suzie-from-music-from-big-pink-1968/ but that link doesn't seem to work anymore, unless someone can rescue it using Wayback or something similar. Rlendog (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a song by The Band that was covered by another very notable band. Meets the general requirements for notability, as sources show. WP:HEY -Mushy Yank. 09:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 09:56, 8 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!} 03:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after WP:HEY by Rlendog, clearly there is now enough to develop a substantive article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jay City, Indiana

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

According to the county history, a town which was platted but which never took off. About all else I can find out about it was that there was once a Brethren church here, but it's long gone. Mangoe (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as there are few, if any, reliable sources that specifically talk about this topic. Z. Patterson (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Mangoe said in the nomination, there not being any sources is not true. Uncle G (talk) 08:07, 7 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!} 03:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kuhrt

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

This article has problems with WP:CRIMINAL and WP:BLP1E. Known exclusively in the context of Allen Stanford. There is no criminal notability for this man. Not opposed to redirecting there if a mention is added, since he is mentioned in RS in connection. Nothing focuses on this guy in depth. Every single source except one is a press release, and the one remaining has only brief mentions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Finance, and United States of America. Almost all of these sources we cannot use on BLPs so we would have to nuke it to be compliant with BLP. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Stanford Financial Group, or perhaps mention in Allen Stanford article as a co-perpetrator. The current article is a psudo-biography and should be included in the article about the crime, not exist as a separate article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Stanford trial has been considered one of the largest financial fraud cases ever tried in federal court. Therefore, this is not a case of common criminality.

James M. Davis and Laura Pendergest-Holt were also co-defendants of Stanford and were sentenced resp. to 5 and 3 years in prison. Even their criminal notoriety depends only on the Stanford case. Both have a separate page and this fact has never been questioned.

Kuhrt, compared to Davis and Pendergest-Holt, had a more serious responsibility and was sentenced for that to 20 years in prison. In my opinion, if Davis and Pendergest-Holt deserve a separate page I believe that a fortiori Kuhrt's case also deserves one.

Moreover, in my opinion, if we add to Stanford's page (which is already very detailed) the cases of all the other co-defendants we overburden it.

Meanwhile, many news sources have been added on Kuhrt’s page reporting on his case with details about what transpired during his trial. Mediascriptor (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has been considered by who? No source says that. The sourcing is still not about Muhrt it’s about Stanford. Judging this page on its own merits we have no reason to have it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

« The Stanford trial was one of the largest financial fraud cases ever tried in federal court.^[1] »

This sentence (and relative source-CNBC) has been picked up from Judge David Hittner page.

Regarding the added sources, they are also about Kuhr’t actually. They report what the public prosecutor and a witness said about Kuhrt at the trial. Mediascriptor (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They do not contain sigcov about him. Public prosecutor statements are not secondary sources they are primary. That the trial is big does not make every obscure person involved notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Public Prosecutor's and witnesses' statements, as well as some details about Kuhrt's responsabilities, do not emerge only from a press release by the prosecution office, the FBI or the government but even from many journalistic sources, which are secondary sources. A good part of the journalistic sources that talk about Stanford also talk about his accomplice Kuhrt.

Stanford, before committing a 7 billion scam, was an obscure figure. The extreme gravity of the scam made him notorious. The same is true for his accomplices, especially Kuhrt, who after Stanford received the most severe sentence (20 years).

For the rest, I repeat my question: why should this argument apply only to Kuhrt and not also to Davis and Perdergest-Holt, who had less serious responsibilities? Mediascriptor (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The responsibilities do not matter, what matters is the quality of the sourcing. There is nothing to indicate he passes NCRIMINAL. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:12, 8 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!} 03:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Stanford Financial Group. No indication of independent notability from the crime, as evidenced by the article having essentially no biographical info on Kuhrt. Emblematic of this, Newspapers.com has no results for "Mark Kuhrt" prior to 2009. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurants Canada

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

Searching under new name and former name"Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association" yielded very little in google news. A lot of globalnewswire hits which is a PR site. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Organizations, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And it turns out that Canada Business: The Portable Encyclopedia for Doing Business with Canada, which came up on a quick, and failed, search for good sources, is not in fact an encyclopaedia. ☺ I agree with the nominator. Lots of directories of lobbyists, lots of lobbying publications; no independent in-depth descriptions of the specific lobbyists, other than inclusion in laundry lists. Uncle G (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is hard to sort through all the bad sourcing, but I didn't find anything that would establish notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Vaage

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an actor and filmmaker, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for actors or filmmakers. The attempted notability claim here is an ensemble (not solo) win at the Canadian Comedy Awards, which would be fine if the article were properly sourced but is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG. But the article is referenced almost entirely to primary sources (e.g. directory entries, film credits sourced to the self-published catalogues of film festivals that screened them rather than notability-building coverage about them, etc.), alongside a couple of news articles that briefly namecheck Vaage's existence without being about him in any non-trivial sense, none of which is support for notability.
There's also a likely conflict of interest here, as the article was created by a WP:SPA named "Skitsandplays".
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with at least 2 significant roles in notable productions (That's So Weird! and Y llegaron de noche). If the first is judged much more important than the latter, the page could be redirected to its cast section. Coverage to verify the first and expand includes https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/that-s-so-weird-parody-draws-the-tweens/article_82bed3d3-617d-5f6e-8b9e-7ee1b92d2314.html (on the page); https://www.insidehalton.com/things-to-do/thats-so-weirds-aj-vaage-does-improv-battle-in-oakville/article_c8858f5f-cac8-5eb7-bc21-89ee2975b42b.html (based on an interview) Coverage for verification of the second includes: https://www.chicmagazine.com.mx/personajes/y-llegaron-de-noche-actores-y-personajes-en-la-serie, https://oem.com.mx/elsoldemexico/gossip/eugenio-derbez-hace-reir-en-dos-idiomas-con-y-llegaron-de-noche-13133549 etc. -Mushy Yank. 01:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cohn, Scott (2019-02-20). "Victims of that other Ponzi scheme—Allen Stanford's—say they have been short-changed". CNBC. Retrieved 2023-06-21.

[1] Cohn, Scott (2019-02-20). "Victims of that other Ponzi scheme—Allen Stanford's—say they have been short-changed". CNBC. Retrieved 2023-06-21.

[1]