Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 07:23, 11 January 2025

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      January 9 (Thu)      January 8 (Wed)      January 7 (Tue)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Purge server cache

Westballz

Westballz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Top esports player who lacks significant coverage to prove notability. The profiles from Red Bull and ESPN are a good start, but the rest are either web articles of questionable reliability or independence (theScore eSports, EventHubs, G2 Esports) or routine coverage of changes in teams / sponsorships. Bridget (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and California. Bridget (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - These two ESPN sources , , the Red Bull source , as well as published unauthorized biography probably pushes the subject over the edge in terms of notability. 14:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Pbrks, were you able to find more info about the book or its author and publisher? The lack of info makes it look a bit suspect, and the blurb isn't too useful. Bridget (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox 22:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Passes GNG per above, this pretty clearly gets the article over the line.

Noah 23:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Martina Ferrari

Martina Ferrari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this Chilean rhythmic gymnast. JTtheOG (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Chile. JTtheOG (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: Does not appear to have sufficient secondary sources to prove WP:SPORTBASIC. It's probably WP:TOOSOON. Mamani1990 (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Lucia Arrascaeta

• Articles for deletion/Lucia Arrascaeta
• Articles for deletion/Lucia Arrascaeta (2nd nomination)

Lucia Arrascaeta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this Argentinian rhythmic gymnast. Article was previously draftified in June. JTtheOG (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Argentina. JTtheOG (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: The subject is barely mentioned in any of the sources listed. I also did some quick research, hoping to find something useful, but I haven't found anything. Aona1212 (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Kate Vetricean

Kate Vetricean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this Canadian rhythmic gymnast. JTtheOG (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Canada. JTtheOG (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Zero coverage in even Canadian media, appears to be a non-notable athlete. Sourcing in the article is for gymnastic federations or competition results. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Couldn't find any strong secondary sourcing for this WP:YOUNGATH to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

List of engineering programs in the California State University

List of engineering programs in the California State University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This topic does not apepar to be independently notable as a grouping as there are few, if any, sources about this specific grouping of academic programs. I also have concerns about synthesis, the general maintainability of a listing as detailed as this one, and the specific format chosen in the present version (a table too wide for the screens of most readers). ElKevbo (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Engineering, Lists, and California. Spiderone 22:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Delete per WP:NOT. Even if the topic were notable (which it doesn't appear to be), this isn't encyclopedic content. Robminchin (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. The article is essentially a very high-quality WP:CATALOG, but a search for inherent notability behind CSU's engineering programs yields little to nothing other than just the programs themselves. Ranking websites, CSU sublinks, etc. don't justify notability, and those are just about the only things covering this subject. GuardianH (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Misplaced Pages is not a university enrolment guide. Ajf773 (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: I agree that the format is non-standard and actually annoying, but my reason for deletion is that this does not meet notability for a list article. Specifically, there are no independent or secondary sources that discuss this group, nor can I find one with a quick search. In Misplaced Pages, list articles have this very specific threshold for notability. Rublamb (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per others. This is a clear case of WP:NOT and I wouldn't be surprised if there are other articles like this for other university systems. Conyo14 (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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 speedy keep‎. Liz 00:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll

100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I found no significant coverage for this television special. Non-notable. SL93 (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Television. Spiderone 22:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete -- (strong) -- per nominator. No SIGCOV and a single source is not enough, regardless.

MWFwiki (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Morse, Steve (1998-03-31). "VH1's Top 100 Choices Don't Rock". The Boston Globe. Factiva bstngb0020010915du3v00cpl. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "Picking a Top 100 in any field is hard, but it's especially hard in rock 'n' roll, which is prey to all manner of whims and prejudices. That didn't stop cable channel VH1 from trying -- and this time it didn't poll critics or fans. It polled 600 artists, who collectively chose the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, and Bob Dylan as the Top 5. Those names probably come as no surprise, but there will surely be smirks at some of the other 95 acts on the list unveiled on VH1's "100 Greatest Artists of Rock &Roll." The show premieres tonight from 10 to 11, followed by additional one-hour segments at the same hour each night through Saturday. ... As a parlor game, it's fun to discuss the results. But the list could have been better, and so could the show, which succumbs to numbing repetition and is undone by Bacon's goofy rah-rah attitude and by an insipid female voice-over. Each winner is represented by video footage you've probably seen many times before and sometimes by self-serving concert clips from the VH1 archives. These are the "100 Greatest Artists" in a narrowed universe."

  2. Farber, Jim (1998-03-29). "Fab 4 Top 100 List". New York Daily News. Factiva nydn000020010918du3t006hj.

     The article notes: "Wanna start an argument? Name the 100 greatest music artists of all time in order.VH1 just dared to, basing its choices not on in-house opinions, nor on those of critics, but on the picks of current artists themselves.From Tuesday through Saturday (at 10 p.m.), the music channel will run five hour-long segments counting down the "100 Greatest Artists of Rock 'n' Roll" in groups of 20. The installments center around archival footage of the musicians and feature quotes from those they influenced. ... The results include some surprises. The top three 1) The Beatles, 2) The Rolling Stones and 3) Jimi Hendrix deserve comment only in that the third slot isn't occupied by Bob Dylan, who instead landed at No. 5. ... Even so, perhaps the most jaw-dropping choice is The Police at No. 10, above Ray Charles (No. 12), Marvin Gaye (No. 14) and Aretha Franklin (No. 21). However much juice this defunct band commands, they hardly rate Top Ten status in terms of innovation or depth."

  3. Gieske, Tony (1998-03-21). "VH1 Presents the 100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 351, no. 47. pp. 20, 133. ProQuest 2393629738.

     The article notes: "Six hundred musicians from the VH1 "roll and Rollodex" voted up a list of the 100 all-time all-frantic ones, and tonight the bottom 20 are stitched into a kind of rock quilt, the first of five tumultuous sections. The list runs from bottom to top, Letterman-style. ... Fats Domino gets to do "Blueberry Hill" all the way through, with only a few adulatory interruptions, but he's one of the few who is permitted a whole number. And so it goes in this high-speed panorama. The songs, the artists and the commentary are perforce familiar if not banal, so it's all in the editing, which is fortunately first-rate in the Jet Ski style for which MTV is famous. Jet Ski or Osterizer. We're talking jarring juxtapositions like Robert Johnson and Diana Ross, Carole King and Madonna, Johnny Cash and the Ramones. In the second chunk, to be heard Wednesday, John Coltrane wins the posthumous title of honorary rocker, and Miles Davis gets in there eventually."

  4. Hay, Carla (1998-03-21). "VH1 polls artists on rock's greats". Billboard. Vol. 110, no. 12. pp. 10, 110. ProQuest 227110870. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Internet Archive.

     The article notes: "Amid the seemingly endless parade of awards shows and "best of" lists, VH1 has produced a unique music survey naming "The 100 Greatest Artists Of Rock And Roll." The acts included in the survey weren't chosen by critics or VH1 staffers but by other music acts. The survey results will be revealed in a countdown that premieres March 31-April 4 on VH1, and labels and retailers are already anticipating a sales boost for some of the acts as a result. ... The majority of those named in "The 100 Greatest Artists Of Rock And Roll" are artists who made their marks well before the dawn of MTV. Although consistent favorites Elvis Presley, the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, and the Rolling Stones predictably have made the top 10, the survey also yields results that may be surprising to some people. David Bowie is ranked higher than Presley, and the Police are the only post-punk/MTV-era act ranked in the top 10. In addition, some acts who don't fall neatly into the rock category are on the list, including Bob Marley, Johnny Cash, Aretha Franklin, and John Coltrane."

  5. Piccoli, Sean (1998-04-03). "Business as Usual: Irrepressible Punk Rage". Sun Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.

     The article notes: "Rating the greats Off the subject of polemics _ but not too far off _ my always outrage-able Sun-Sentinel colleague, television critic Tom Jicha, spotted the music cable channel VH1 picking a fight of another sort this week: the 100 Greatest Artists of Rock 'n' Roll video-thon. VH1 says its 100 Greatest were selected through a mailing to more than 600 rock 'n' roll musicians. Not all results are surprising: The Top 10 includes the Beatles (1), Jimi Hendrix (3), Bob Dylan (5) and James Brown (6). But it gets interesting. Positing Dylan as a runner-up to Hendrix, in fact, may be the least argumentative of the rock panel's picks. ... The five-part series concludes with a pair of one-hour broadcasts, 10 tonight and Saturday, hailing the final 40 contenders through interviews, concert footage and video clips."

  6. Hesse, Monica (2007-09-29). "On Cable, Shows That Count Down To the Lowest Common Denominator". The Washington Post. ProQuest 2827611958. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.

     The article notes: "A decade ago, Jeff Gaspin, VH1's new vice president of programming, suggested that the channel do a countdown show -- a Casey Kasem-y thing with musicians, not critics, picking the rankings. In 1998, VH1 premiered "100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll": a five-part series going from No. 100 Paul Simon to the list-topping Beatles, with everyone from Nirvana (No. 42) to Gladys Knight & the Pips (91) in between. So many artists. So much anticipation. So much Kevin Bacon, who hosted."

  7. Ivry, Bob (1998-04-25). "Poll Takes the Pulse of Rock's Greatest Acts". The Record. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.

     The article notes: "lanagan sent ballots to hundreds of musicians, asking them to put together their entire Top 100 "greatest artists" list no more specific than that and received more than 100 back. ... Another sign that a new generation of rockers voted in the poll is the low position of the King of Rock-and-Roll Elvis could muster only a No. 8 ranking. ... Another mild surprise is the dearth of female artists in the top spots, especially in the era of Lilith Fair and boom times for women singer-songwriters like Jewel, Shawn Colvin, and Sarah McLachlan. Aretha Franklin was the top woman, at No. 21, and Joni Mitchell, another idol of all three of the aforementioned singers, was second in the women's category, at No. 32."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll to pass Misplaced Pages:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Notability has been shown. This can be considered withdrawn if MWFwiki changes their vote to keep. SL93 (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Withdrawn MWFwiki (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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.

Style Design College

Style Design College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An article about a purported, and certainly long defunct, educational "institution" (at best, a company). There are no reliable sources about it, and its website is long dead (and subsequently usurped by various advertisers). Wayback has an archive of its site from 2016 here. There it claims to be an institution of higher education, yet doesn't mention the names of any staff or give any sign of a campus, phone number, or anything else to suggest it's anything more than a trivial website run by mystery people.

There are various claims made about it in the article's history, but with poor to no reliable sources. So I think this was, at best, a non-notable training company selling courses over the internet, with questionable accreditation. It's certainly defunct now. It wasn't, and isn't, notable in any way, and the article isn't supported by any kind of reliable source.

Note that an earlier (but no better) incarnation of the article (created by user:Styledesigncollege) was speedied in 2008. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 21:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Education, Schools, and Italy. Spiderone 22:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NCORP, and after searching, the best sources I could find are Pinterest and Groupon. Bearian (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

5P Global Movement

5P Global Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT, WP:ORGDEPTH. Too hasty after the Pope's visit. Expect more action from the organization. This article has been deleted on idwiki based on WP:UP/WP:XFD Ariandi Lie 21:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Indonesia. Ariandi Lie 21:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Having analyzed the sources, I concluded that the subject is not notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article, and therefore I fully agree with the nominator. --Taking off shortly (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Kingsley Kobayashi

Kingsley Kobayashi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All the sources Fail Misplaced Pages general Notability guidelines. The first source is an interview with an unreliable blog, the second source cannot be verified though from the URL, it is also an unreliable blog. The third source is the subject's website. The fifth source is a puff piece and the last source is also the subject's website Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• This is pretty close to containing no assertion of notability at all so far. Dekimasuよ! 02:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Go ahead, delete it. ONLY YOU nominated all my articles, why did you omit the ones I wrote on journalism in Nigeria? please add it and delete that too. you are enemy of progress. I have nothing to gain or earn writing articles for Misplaced Pages. It's out of share love for reading and writing. Your malicious intents to discourage me and prospective writers is noted. you can go ahead in your evil enterprise. delete the article, there is no trophy to be won in writing articles on Misplaced Pages. I have nothing to gain, so please your evil conscience, delete IT. Akowe1975 (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: More crypto nonsense, nothing for notability that I can find in any sources. The one source Vanguard used in the article isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: No reliable secondary sourcing to prove notability under WP:ANYBIO. One of the only sources that might be argued as "credible", from The Guardian (Nigeria), sounds a lot like ChatGPT: "In a world where business extends beyond profit, Kingsley Kobayashi’s journey exemplifies a commitment to societal well-being and a vision for a brighter, more inclusive future". I believe Brown envelope journalism might be at play here, a practice heavily entrenched in Newspapers published in Nigeria.Mamani1990 (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of significant coverage. In 2025, everyone knows the problems that Misplaced Pages has had with its sources. There are lots of Nigerian politicians, entertainers, and entrepreneurs who are notable, but they get into reliable sources without any payola or selling crypto. If your defense of this article is practically a quote out of WP:GRIEF, then you are not winning. Bearian (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

EBC Group

EBC Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are largely primary, republished press releases, or dubiously reliable finance sites that fail to provide sufficient coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Similar results on GNews, and ProQuest is largely some sponsorship coverage, which falls under trivial coverage. ARandomName123 (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. ARandomName123 (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet NCORP. --BoraVoro (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete I see one single reliable source, Yahoo Finance. If you eliminated the weasel words and stubify it, then you would be left with nothing but original research. Bearian (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  The Yahoo Finance source is syndicated content, not their own. It was originally from https://www.retailbankerinternational.com/news/ebc-financial-group-debuts-on-laliga-stage-with-fc-barcelona-partnership/?cf-view ARandomName123 (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

.Keep it meets WP:SUBSTANTIAL and WP:FAILCORP Troublemasher (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Inadequate depth of coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Notice of a collaboration with FC Barcelona has attracted attention but what editorial comment there is seems to replicate what the two partners say. Rupples (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Anine Bing Corp

Anine Bing Corp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article seems to fail WP:ORG almost all of the sources are about the founder and only mentions the organization. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Companies. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and California. Spiderone 20:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - I see one big giant WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎

This AFD was closed by the nominator, TheWhole151. Liz 00:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Miles In Transit

Miles In Transit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails to meet notability guidelines, with sources referenced in the article having little relation to the content of the article. Parts of the article appear to be original research, such as current employment, which are not mentioned in attached sources.

Miles' YouTube channel is not unique to the platform, as there are a plethora of creators on YouTube who make similar content regarding traveling by public transportation, and are not included on Misplaced Pages. TheWhole151 (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Internet, Transportation, and Massachusetts. Spiderone 20:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep — the vast majority of other transit creators were at least somewhat inspired by Miles, and he’s been doing it for 10+ years. Also, why on earth is original research bad?!

Best, MTATransitFan 22:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

None of the sources from the original article mentioned that his work would have inspired the work of others. Article fails notability from WP:CREATIVE for this reason, with no source picking up this "inspiration" you mention. Few larger creators are on Misplaced Pages, e.g. Geoff Marshall in this field, with notability from other accomplishments outside of just having a YouTube channel. The amount of time he has been on the platform (~5 years) plays no role into notability. Original research is also prohibited by WP:NOR, and as mentioned, the article included statements and claims not backed up by the provided sources. TheWhole151 (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy keep: None of the arguments for deletion are factually correct. Ten of the sources are substantial independent coverage about Taylor and his productions; that's a clear pass of WP:NBASIC. There's only one unsourced paragraph, but it would be easy to cite from the existing sources. The argument that his employment is uncited is incorrect: As of 2024, Taylor works for the MBTA as a transit service planner is in fact discussed in the given source: "My job as a service planner is like my dream job." Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Do not delete. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart Reed 51 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC) — Bart Reed 51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep per Pi.1415926535. I was initially skeptical as to the quantity of secondary sources but there are far more than I initially would have thought. Emma Lexi Triphora (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep – There is significant coverage of the subject in several major news publications (Boston Globe, Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer) but it isn't for a singular event. Clearly meets GNG. SounderBruce 03:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - per SounderBruce. Requester should review Misplaced Pages:Credible claim of significance and not delete citations while tagging before bringing any future articles for deletion. --Michael Greiner 03:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, per Pi.1415926535 and SounderBruce. SJ Morg (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: Whether or not there are individual unsourced statements in the article does not factor into the overall notability of the subject, which is where this discussion should really be focused. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 11:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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.

Slaveco.

Slaveco. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A MySpace band that never released an album. Had several notable members that were in SNFU, but Slaveco. is only mentioned in sources as a minor, failed side-step to that project. There are literally no sources that focus on the band as an independent, notable entity. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

With apologies for repeating myself from last edit summary, the band is discussed in multiple WP:RSes -- including two books and a documentary, cited in the article -- and hence seems to pass criterion #1 of WP:BAND. Given this, the information is noteworthy; and it furthermore does not belong in the SNFU article, since this would bloat that article; hence, I submit that it needs its own article. Relatedly, I'm not convinced that the term "MySpace band" means very much or is as damning as I take the usage to imply, since numerous bands great and small from the aughts had MySpace accounts. But I understand the editor's concerns and maybe we can see what others think. In any case, I vote keep. CCS81 (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Two books by the same author and a documentary that all mention it briefly as one of Ken Chinn's small projects (along with The Wongs and Little Joe that also don't have articles). MySpace band refers to the fact that when I found the article, it still had a MySpace link (which relates to the essay WP:MYSPACEBAND). Why? I Ask (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I think I understand, but the "WP:MYSPACEBAND" joke article seems to imply that this term refers primarily to self-generated content, e.g., about one's own non-noteworthy garage band, as evidenced by the proliferation of the term "your" throughout the joke article. There is no such content in the Slaveco. article. Hence, I don't see the relevance of WP:MYSPACEBAND to the Slaveco. article, deleted dead MySpace link not withstanding. Better would be to defer to WP:BAND and the criteria for notability described there. CCS81 (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Let me lay this out for all our sakes. Here are the statements in favor of deletion, as far as I can tell, and my responses:

• Slaveco. is a WP:MYSPACEBAND. This, I think, is false, since the article seems to imply that this term is for band articles with self-generated content, which is not the case for Slaveco.
• Slaveco. never released a record. This is true but insufficient for deletion, because WP:BAND specifies criteria for inclusion other than releasing albums.
• Slaveco. is only minimally treated in the WP:RSes. This seems to be what is worth discussing. Slaveco. is the subject of one ten-page chapter (Chapter 12, pages 196-206) of Walter 2020, which is a 17-chapter book. There is further discussion in Walter 2024, but it only spans about five pages. The editor in favor of deletion seems to suggest that this is insufficient for C1 of WP:BAND, whereas my argument is that it is significant coverage that is independently noteworthy and would be too bulky to fold into the SNFU article or articles about any of the individual members. On this, I think, the discussion should be focused. I hope this is helpful. CCS81 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Canada. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. The existing sources in the article, particularly the chapter Chris Walter's book, plus the following, are enough to establish notability per WP:GNG.

• "Slaveco prepared to slay 'em". Nelson Daily News. 2004-04-22. p. 3. ProQuest 357444111.
• PD (2004-04-15). "Mr. Pig stuff". Vue Weekly (443): 23.
• Williams, Rob (2004-04-15). "Pig business: SNFU chief Chi branches out in Slaveco enterprise". The Winnipeg Sun. p. 61.

Jfire (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for finding these sources. I personally am still in favor of deletion because of WP:SUSTAINED. A few concert announcements from the same month don't do it for me. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Can this not just be redirected/merged to a section under SNFU or Ken Chinn? I doubt anyone is going to care about a band that simply toured for a year outside of its relationship to those two. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  There are two other notable members with their own articles, so I don't think it's right to imply that no one else is going to care other than those reading about Chinn or SNFU. I'm also not sure what the rationale for deletion is given that it passes WP:GNG. I see lots of "subjective" language ("I doubt...", "don't do it for me",) but can't see the rationale from the perspective of guidelines for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. Maybe others have thoughts. CCS81 (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Database Management Library

Database Management Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Someone's abortive, defunct, entirely non-notable summer hobby project. No coverage whatever in any reliable source (the generic name of the project means searches will return unrelated to this project). Article creator, and sole substantive contributor, is the project sole contributor. PROD removed by creator without comment or improvement. Non-notable COI spam. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 19:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 19:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable software. Jfire (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. No claim of notability. This article would fall under A7 if it was not related to software. Brandon (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, and the "official website" is a dead link. Also fails WP:NOTGUIDE. --Richard Yin (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - literally made up on summer vacation. Everyone here (including me) makes mistakes, but if your 70 edits over 15 years are this hot mess plus repeated spamming, then you're not here for the Project. We are not your free web host. Bearian (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Bharat Sundari

Bharat Sundari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:ALS, no evidence of notability. The beauty pageant organization existed from 1968 to 1975 (lacks factual evidence), with 5 representatives sent to Miss World, two of whom were semi-finalists and one placed as 4th runner-up. While this might be covered in offline sources, given India's success in Miss World, the coverage to support the organization's credibility for Misplaced Pages is questionable. I reviewed few sources, but they are all unreliable and lacks SigCov. Fails WP:GNG. — MimsMENTOR 15:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Beauty pageants, India, and Haryana. — MimsMENTOR 15:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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.

Ghazi Shahzad

Ghazi Shahzad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL since he never won an election, nor does he satisfy WP:GNG, the Anadolu source within the article describes his as "a little-known politician." Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Crime, Law, Politics, Terrorism, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG criteria (WP:ANYBIO / WP:NPOL. Limited WP:RS and WP:IS for WP:V. This article is supposed to be WP:BLP. Note: Ghazi Shahzad is a little-known politician ... which question the notability of the article. QEnigma talk 17:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Tehreek-e-Azaadi Jammu and Kashmir if the last proper version is considered (). QEnigma talk 19:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@QEnigma: That version is a WP:BLPVIO because a major portion lacks sources, and in the portion that does have sources, they are inaccurately represented. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. This AfD occurs after User:SheriffIsInTown blanked the (sourced) article and then tried to delete it under WP:BLPPROD claiming it was unsourced. The claim of being a "little-known politician" was also added by SheriffIsInTown just prior to initiating this AfD. Perhaps the result should be a delete but the discussion should not be based on SheriffIsInTown's prejudicial edits. See for the article as it was before SheriffIsInTown started editing to make it worse and then use its badness as an excuse for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  @David Eppstein Since when removing unsourced content from a BLP content considered "making it worse"? Anadolu source describes the individual as "a little known politician", would you prefer to keep the version which had a lot of unsourced content and rest a total misrepresentation of the sources. I blanked the article because it was a total WP:BLPVIO, I tried to PROD because I wanted to save every one a hassle of an AfD but you saw it as bad faith, really? Also, I have no issue if you want to take time to improve the article and properly source it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  Blanking a sourced article and then saying that because you blanked the sources it should be deleted for having no sources: is that a good-faith attempt to determine whether the article is notable and should be improved or deleted? Editing the first sentence of the article to directly say that the subject is non-notable, and then using that statement of non-notability as the basis for a deletion discussion: is that a good-faith attempt to determine whether the article is notable and should be improved or deleted? As I said, perhaps the article should be deleted. But your actions attempting to get it deleted make it appear that you have predetermined to delete it and are trying any way you can to ram it through, rather than allowing the community to make a fair decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  @David Eppstein I should have adjusted the content according to the sources which I did after you removed the PROD tag, I made a mistake to blank it, I thought it was a good idea to do as the lede as well was not sourced and I saw it as a WP:BLPVIO, the presence of the sources within article does not mean that content is actually according to those sources but anyway I will shut up and allow the community to make a decision. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment In English alone there seems to have been more than passing mentions of Shahzad since 2023: described as the head of Tehreek-e-Azaadi Jammu and Kashmir, widespread coverage of his gaol break in June 2024 , , , coverage of attempts to recapture him in November 2024. He was also a candidate in the 2021 Azad Kashmir legislative elections (which by itself is not an indicator of notability, yes, yes), but is likely to mean there's some local coverage of him in Urdu or Kashmiri. Appears to me there should be a merge/redirect AtD here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge into Tehreek-e-Azaadi Jammu and Kashmir. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Procedural keep or Selectively merge and redirect from the last good version of this article. Bearian (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Bearian: That version is a WP:BLPVIO because a major portion lacks sources, and in the portion that does have sources, they are inaccurately represented. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Tehreek-e-Azaadi Jammu and Kashmir using sourced information from the existing article also drawing on the sources mentioned by Goldsztajn. Suggest that {{R with possibilities}} should be used for the redirect as it seems that more sources might come to light so as to make the subject notable in their own right. SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

List of most eaten meat in the world by countries and territories

List of most eaten meat in the world by countries and territories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced, no evidence that this meets WP:NLIST. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Would this count as a source demonstrating the collation meets NLIST? . I expect there are others. But I can't bring myself to !vote keep because it s semi plagiaristic to just take someone's collation and throw it on Misplaced Pages (surely the collation attractes database right or similar?), and because what we have here is unsourced and would have to be fully checked, and because it is horribly overlinked, containing almost no unwikilinked text. It's a list though, so meh, the list saviours will be along shortly. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. The total absence of sources is the most important objection to this article, but even if that were fixed (a huge undertaking) serious problems would remain. Would it deserve an article? Do the results have any general consequences? Moreover, without claiming any expertise in the matter, apart from living for significant periods and eating in several countries (UK, USA, Canada, Chile, France), I find some of the classifications very surprising. Athel cb (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Comparing it to the list I found above, yes. Some big errors in it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Something feels fundamentally unsound to me about placing countries into exclusive groups based on which one of a couple categories was higher than all others in that country. We'd never create a similar list based on the most common ethnicity or religion in a country, for example; even if meats don't (always) have the same implications, it's still hard to justify squashing a complex distribution - which doesn't even necessarily follow national boundaries! - down to a single choice for "most eaten". Omphalographer (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced, fails WP:NLIST and WP:TRIVIA. The page mentioned above is not much more than an infographic, though it is at least sourced. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Total original research and WP:TRIVIA. Ajf773 (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as it's simply completely unsourced. --SimmeD (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. No sources whatsoever and no explanation about why some particular meat is eaten somewhere. It's just an indiscriminate list that isn't even verifiable. JIP | Talk 22:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per Ajf773. (Greetings from Commons, where the images uploaded by this article's creator are also up for deletion.) The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete Per nom. Seems this user has added some uncited maps in articles like Fruit and Languages of Europe as well (which are now removed). Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Kyle Morrison

Kyle Morrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is only WP:ROUTINE coverage and last years signining to Solihill Moors documented in Solihull Observer as WP:BLP1E, there is no WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG.  Note: Not to be confused with the Gaelic footballer of the same name. CNC (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and England. CNC (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 23:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. With the exception of one local news source, the others are not independent, so insufficient independent coverage to pass the GNG. Rupples (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

List of newspapers in Norfolk Island

List of newspapers in Norfolk Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Lists, and Australia. Spiderone 16:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. 2 items not enough to be called a list. Teraplane (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Only 2 non notable items. LibStar (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

So Kataoka

So Kataoka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced BLP article of an athlete on Rockdale Ilinden FC that has incomplete sections. A google search yields no indication of notability. For the record, there may be a COI issue here as Tp767, who created the Thomas Petrovski article, has several edits here. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

For the record, while I am not yet nominating them for deletion, other possibly non-notable athletes on Rockdale Ilinden FC have poorly sourced articles or articles that are otherwise in bad shape that use excessive primary sources, including but not limited to Mathieu Cordier, Blake Ricciuto (decent shape but lots of unsourced info), Ricardo Rizzo, Bai Antoniou, and Alec Urosevski (decent shape but lots of primary sources). KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone 16:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 23:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

List of Atlantic Coast Conference business schools

List of Atlantic Coast Conference business schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There do not appear to be substantive reliable sources that group these schools together in this manner; compare with List of M7 business schools which does appear to mirror an existing list of business schools. ElKevbo (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Education, Schools, Lists, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete The ACC is a sports conference. The fact that these universities have business schools, or medical schools, or engineering schools is utterly irrelevant to who their athletic teams play, especially with changing conference membership. Although there are related academic organizations that span these schools, it's rather embarrassing for the article that none mentioned have to do with the business schools. Reywas92 18:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment List of Big Ten business schools CrazyPaco (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Would also vote to delete that. Reywas92 23:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Would also vote to delete that one as well if it were nominated. Jjazz76 (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails to meet notability for a list article because it lacks sources that discuss this collection schools as a group. Also, organizing business schools by college athletic conferences makes little sense, especially since these are mostly graduate schools whose students are mostly not associated with undergraduate college athletics. Rublamb (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: per previous comments and the illogical mixing of a sports conference, with a list of academic units. Same goes for the List of Big Ten business schools mentioned by User:Crazypaco. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The Big Ten list is not included in Category:Lists of business schools so I didn't see it when I was considering this nomination. I'm not comfortable nominating it until this discussion has concluded as I don't want editors to think that I'm targeting these lists specifically or trying to "flood the zone" with nominations. ElKevbo (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. The article is a well-sorted list but it doesn't have the inherent notability to justify an article on its own. In addition to the other comments, searches for sources just reveal the program themselves, and the widespread, secondary independent coverage generally required for the subject doesn't seem to be satisfied here. GuardianH (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete While the ACC having expanded into an "Academic Collaborative" does go some way to explaining what appears at first glance to be organization-by-athletic-conference, there isn't any indication that this is actually notable as a collection of business schools. Robminchin (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. I have not found reliable sourcing that considers the business schools of the Atlantic Coast Conference as a group. Searches of journalism, scholarship, and books (the list of results here is misleading; checking the results shows that the hits are simply cases where "Atlantic Coast Conference", "business", and "school" are mentioned in the same book, not as an actual reference to the business schools of Atlantic Coast Conference institutions) provided no evidence this grouping of businesses is noteworthy. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as a non notable cross categorisation. Ajf773 (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete Not notable or covered in reliable sources. Jjazz76 (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

List of Ivy League business schools

• Articles for deletion/List of Ivy League business schools
• Articles for deletion/List of Ivy League business schools (4th nomination)

List of Ivy League business schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There do not appear to be substantive reliable sources that group these schools together in this manner; compare with List of M7 business schools which does appear to mirror an existing list of business schools. ElKevbo (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Education, Schools, Lists, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

https://fortune.com/education/articles/wharton-is-first-ivy-league-business-school-to-launch-a-hybrid-executive-mba-program/

https://execed.business.columbia.edu/about

https://www.inspirafutures.com/blog/ivy-league-business-schools

https://www.businessinsider.com/mba-jobs-search-consultancies-offers-business-school-careers-2023-11

https://greatcollegeadvice.com/admissions-expert-on-studying-business-in-the-ivy-league/

https://poetsandquants.com/2024/08/30/why-this-ivys-top-ranked-business-medical-schools-are-partnering-on-a-new-masters-degree/

https://www.highereddive.com/news/with-hbx-rebranding-harvard-puts-the-online-back-in-online-business-scho/545615/

https://poetsandquants.com/2022/01/17/10-business-schools-to-watch-in-2022/

https://www.essence.com/news/wharton-students-average-american-salary/

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/21/entertainment/ciara-harvard-business-school-trnd/index.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-its-like-to-be-a-student-at-columbia-business-school-2012-6

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444180004578016233463881890

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/05/business/profile-at-wharton-theyre-practicing-what-they-teach.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1987/10/15/columbia-business-school-no-room-for-mr-chips/e9970a88-af8e-477a-a6e1-a64853202504/ 68.175.0.155 (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Given that nearly all of those sources are about individual schools and not the entire collection of schools, it would be helpful if you would explain to us how you think they inform this discussion. Please remember that this discussion is only about this list article, not the article about each school. ElKevbo (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: I agree with the "keep" outcome of the three prior AfDs that this meets notability for a list article. At least five sources talk about Ivy League business schools as a group--not the best sources but usable. What I don't like is a list article that consists of only six items. I would not be upset if there were a way to merge this table into another article about the Ivey League colleges but I can't find a good option. The phrase Ivy League originally applied to a group of private schools but is now used as the name of a collegiate athletic conference (which is what the Ivy League article is about). Rublamb (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we need to be very critical of sources for this topic given the immense industry of consultants, tutors, and scammers who write about anything "Ivy League" solely to promote themselves and write without any depth, rigor, or interest. ElKevbo (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The term "Ivy League Business School" has been broadly used in the cultural lexicon for several decades, as justified by the sources provided. It is a useful term for prospective students because it conveys value to employers and business professionals, who often associate significant prestige with an education from an "Ivy League Business School." This term commonly refers to institutions such as Harvard, Columbia, Penn, Cornell, Dartmouth, and others.

On the other hand, the term "M7 Business School" was coined in 2015 by the website Poets & Quants (source: Poets & Quants article). This website profits directly from admissions consulting firms that advertise on its platform. While admissions consulting firms have capitalized on the popularity of the "M7" designation, data shows that Ivy League Business Schools, on average, have higher starting salaries and lower acceptance rates compared to M7 schools.

If there is any concern about the validity of these terms, perhaps the article titled "List of M7 Business Schools," which was created within the past year, should be reconsidered for deletion. 68.175.0.155 (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

We need significant coverage of a topic from multiple, reliable, and (ideally) independent sources. Being "used broadly in the cultural lexicon" is not sufficient.

If you think a different article should also be nominated for deletion, you are welcome to nominate it. I agree that the sources for the M7 list are marginal at best and a deletion discussion could easily go either way. ElKevbo (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Culural lexicon is just one example. See previous discussion. 86.62.29.106 (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: I think this is the correct question to ask when evaluating this article. It would be worthwhile to evaluate the publishers of these sources. Although, there might be more reliable sources that have similar content. I'll see what I can find. Rublamb (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. The issue here is the notability of the subject, rather than the quality or usefulness of the article. The subject lacks inherent notability and, as already pointed out, there are sources for business schools individually, but not collectively. There are hardly any articles talking about Ivy business schools as a whole, and so the widespread, independent secondary coverage usually required to justify notability isn't satisfied here. GuardianH (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Simply believing a topic is not notable is not justification to pretend that a subject doesn't exist. See previous thread. 86.62.29.102 (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Sources 2 through 5 discuss Ivy League business schools as a group, not just idividual schools. That meets notability for Misplaced Pages and for a list article which is the standard to apply to this AfD. We do not consider the usefulness of an article as part of a AfD as that is totally subjective. Rublamb (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete This grouping appears to be based on inherited notability from the patent universities rather than being about the business schools themselves (which appears to be a key distinction between this and the M7 grouping). The articles discussing this group seem to reinforce this, being listicles of the business schools at Ivy League universities rather than substantial coverage. Robminchin (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Not true. The Ivy league was established after many of the universities had established a business school. 86.62.29.106 (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. A cursory search of scholarship in academic publications about business indicates that conceiving of the business schools at Ivy League universities (or "Ivy League business schools") as a group is something that happens in reliable sources. Non-exhaustive examples follow:
  • Ted Tapper and Ourania Filippakou, "The World‐class League Tables and the Sustaining of International Reputations in Higher Education", Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 31, no. 1 (2009): 55–66: In the United States it is the Ivy League business schools that provide the entry route into the inner sanctum of the key capitalist institutions
  • Roland Deiser, Designing the Smart Organization: How Breakthrough Corporate Learning Initiatives Drive Strategic Change and Innovation (John Wiley & Sons, 2009): It is a colorful universe, which includes major players such as Ivy League business schools that provide top-notch executive education
  • John Saunders, Veronica Wong, and Carolyne Saunders, "The Research Evaluation and Globalization of Business Research", British Journal of Management 22, no. 3 (September 2011): 401–419: For example, although the Ivy League business schools on America’s east coast are each hugely strong by world standards, they share resources across their marketing or finance PhD programmes.
  • Catherine Paradeise, Jean-Claude Thoenig, Stéphanie Mignot-Gérard, Emilie Biland, Gaële Goastellec, and Aurélie Delemarle, "Relevance and Excellence in Higher Education Vocational Schools: Business Schools as Institutional Actors", in The Institutional Development of Business Schools, eds. Andrew M. Pettigrew, Eric Cornuel, and Ulrich Hommel (Oxford University Press, 2014): City has been very successful, mainly in finance. 98 per cent of its MBA graduates rapidly get a job, with salaries often higher than those of Ivy League business schools.
  • Graeme Currie, Julie Davies, and Ewan Ferlie, "A Call for University-Based Business Schools to 'Lower Their Walls': Collaborating With Other Academic Departments in Pursuit of Social Value", Academy of Management Learning & Education 15, no. 4 (2016): 742–755: Ivy League business schools such as Harvard have advantages in terms of finance, facilities, and well-connected alumni to facilitate interesting collaborations.
  • Peter Cappelli, Rocio Bonet, and Monika Hamori, "The Changing Ranks of Corporate Leaders", California Management Review 66, no. 2 (2024): 5–29: The Ivy League business schools, associated with higher social class in terms of the income and social status of their students, had a long head start on other MBA programs.

Non-academic reliable sources, like journalism, also group the Ivy League business schools, such as in these non-exhaustive examples:

• • Natasha Singer and Duff Wilson, "Menopause, as Brought to You by Big Pharma", The New York Times, December 13, 2009: While Wyeth has faced periodic complaints about its blockbuster menopause drugs, the latest lawsuits have turned the company’s menopausal hormone franchise into the kind of case study dissected at Ivy League business schools.
  • Eleanor Pringle, "Hotshot Wharton Professor Sees $34 Trillion Debt Triggering 2025 Meltdown as Mortgage Rates Spike Above 7%: 'It Could Derail the Next Administration'", Yahoo Finance March 3, 2024: Among the illustrious nameplates adorning the offices of Ivy League business schools is one Joao Gomes.

The business schools of Ivy League universities are also grouped together in nonfiction books published by major non-university presses (the following are non-exhaustive examples):

• • Quinn Spitzer and Ron Evans, Heads, You Win! How the Best Companies Think—and How You Can Use Their Examples to Develop Critical Thinking Within Your Own Organization (Touchstone Books, 1999) Ivy League business schools are pitching techniques to "catch the new wave"
  • Greg Farrell, Crash of the Titans: Greed, Hubris, the Fall of Merrill Lynch, and the Near-Collapse of Bank of America (Crown Publishing Group, 2010): Instead of hiring the best and brightest graduates of Ivy League business schools by waving the prospect of seven-figure and eight-figure pay backages, BofA preferred hiring aggressive young men and women from less prestigious schools, who were willing to roll up their sleeves and get their hands dirty on behalf of the bank, not for the promise of an obscene amount of money.
  • Walt Bogdanich and Michael Forsythe, When McKinsey Comes to Town: The Hidden Influence of the World's Most Powerful Consulting Firm (Penguin Random House, 2023): Gary's labor force had little idea of what to expect from these highly paid consultants, some graduates of Ivy League business schools.

Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: I have a few degrees from one of these Ivies and I've literally never heard the phrase "Ivy League business school" so it is suspect for me right off the bat. I do think in most of the examples cites above, the references are passing, and are more about the university themselves than the specific schools. The article certainly might be useful, but it definitely isn't notable. Jjazz76 (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Based on this comparison, should we also delete articles discussing Public Ivy, Ivy League Medical Schools, Ivy League Law Schools if one has never heard the term? Also useful but not notable given prior comments is false. 86.62.29.110 (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd certainly welcome those discussions. Public Ivy does seem to have more general notability. I think Ivy League law school, which is a term I've heard has probably the strongest case. Ivy Medical School might be a weaker keep, but yes let's have those discussions if we need to!

Again, the articles cited above seem like mere passing references to me. Jjazz76 (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't look at personal experience in determining notability, but rather rely on the nature and number of sources. In this case, there are a variety of sources that discuss Ivy League Business School; our job is to critically evaluate those sources. Furthermore, as a graduate of a Public Ivy, I suggest we would not have the phrase "Public Ivy" with first having "Ivy League" in common use. Rublamb (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

But do the sources demonstrate real coverage or just a passing mention? To me what has been shared is just the latter, passing mentions, oh Ivy Leagues have business schools. Wonderful! Same flaw with the ACC business school article or the Big 10 business school article. You can draw a box around any group of items and call it a coherent group but at some level it is just made up if no one has ever heard it used before. This article is delving into the world of fantasy-land. Jjazz76 (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep:Misplaced Pages article on Ivy League business schools should be retained as it meets the platform’s notability criteria, including the requirement for significant coverage from reliable and independent sources. While some advocate for deletion based on a perceived lack of collective coverage, historical discussions and decisions (AfDs) have consistently upheld the article’s value. Notably, all Ivy League MBA programs except the Yale School of Management were established prior to the Ivy League's founding in 1954. This historical fact underscores the longstanding academic presence and significance of these institutions, separate from the Ivy League athletic consortium. Although this might prompt a reassessment of including the Yale School of Management in this particular grouping, it does not justify the deletion of the article as a whole. These schools are internationally recognized as some of the most prestigious universities, contributing significantly to both academic and cultural frameworks. This recognition justifies the notability of a collective article, as it embodies a widely acknowledged grouping within both academic circles and broader societal perceptions, meeting Misplaced Pages's standards for significant coverage from reliable and independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.62.29.110 (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Obvious LLM is obvious, struck 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, recent sources added do indeed provide "substantive reliable sources that group these schools together in this manner." 86.62.29.103 (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a good list and it is notable (per all the reasons mentioned before). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.0.155 (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep This grouping seems to be highly referenced by multiple sources and is noteworthy. Simply not liking something for being notable is not justification for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.239.6.150 (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Striking another VPN vote, likely a sock 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Just a note that there have been two other AFDs on this article when it had a different page title:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ivy League business schools.
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ivy League business schools (2nd nomination)

Liz 00:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Josh Brar

Josh Brar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unable to satisfy WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage. B-Factor (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and India. B-Factor (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable singer, going viral isn't the level of notability we need. is an interview. Source 3 in the article is a list of many people, not mostly about this person. I don't see enough for notability at this time. Oaktree b (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  going viral is a context, hitting the charts across multiple countries is notability as defined by the notability guidenlines for Misplaced Pages Music pages. Wikpedia Music Guidelines notability also defines the release by a major record label as the current case is. There are more sources added by other users as well. G4gurpreet (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I found a source from The Times of India, but I'm not sure if it helps. Aona1212 (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 08:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Kerzner International

Kerzner International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An article on a hospitality firm, recently edited to become an article in its own right after previously being a redirect to the article on the founder (no longer a suitable redirect target). Searches find routine listings, a recent item announcing user-submitted awards, and a corporate restructuring announcement, which are insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. Clearly a firm going about its business, but I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, South Africa, and United Arab Emirates. AllyD (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete due to the overwhelming amount of weasel words and promotional content and the difficulty of fixing this meds. This is a whitewashed version of the founder's article, which notes several controversial issues. Sort of reminds me of another prominent South African businessman who gained his first few millions from Apartheid and his next billions from the Middle East. Just saying. Bearian (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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.

Alexandra Ievleva

Alexandra Ievleva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level international medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - all citations are stats pages and mentions, nothing significant. Shinadamina (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: The corresponding Russian article has a few decent sources, such as ] and ]. We probably need to look a bit closer into sources from Russia here to determine if the subject is notable or not. Let'srun (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Why are you nominating/voting if you can't do a one-minute search?
  Here: , , , , , , . (The last one is about her as a coach and about Zahra Lari who she coaches.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Why are you voting if you can't be troubled to acquaint yourself with the provisions of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV? Your first link isn't about the subject, but is an interview from her (which is explicitly debarred from counting towards notability, as the subject's own words is not a reliable source) about her coach. Second link: another interview of the subject. Third link: another interview of the subject. Fourth link: another interview of the subject. Fifth link: another interview of the subject. Sixth link: another interview of the subject. Seventh link ... you got it, another interview of the subject. Not a SINGLE ONE of your links is a third-party, independent reliable source, and I strongly recommend you review the requirements for the same before serving up more link salad.

 Ravenswing      06:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• • Here's another source:
    "Тренер Трусовой, почти партнерша Жубера, резонансная Иевлева: кто соревновался с Туктамышевой на ее 1-м ЧР (2008)". Sport24. 2022-12-26. Retrieved 2025-01-08.
    There is a short biography. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    "Short" is right: three sentences about her skating career. Ravenswing 06:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    • 7 sentences. (Long sentences. 2 paragraphs.)
      Did you come here to support Bgsu98? First, you appeared at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bgsu98 mass-nominating articles for deletion and violating WP:BEFORE. Then, you came to the nominations where I commented. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

      Ahem. I have participated, by one editor's count, in over 4700 unique AfD discussions. You seem to be more focused in attacking editors who say or do things you don't like than in seeking genuine, reliable sources to buttress the notability of the articles you seek to save. Would you like those editors to start openly questioning your motivations and agenda? Ravenswing 21:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Update. I found a short biography of hers and expanded the article a bit: . --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• ← Here's another news article dedicated to her. Yes, there's just one sentence, and then a quote from Ievleva herself. But the sentence is one-paragraph long, it says: "This year's Russian Championships silver medalist, Alexandra Ievleva, took the 11th place at the European Championship in Warsaw, which is the best result among all the debutantes." --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Another interview: (Championat.com). And another one: (Sportbox.ru). --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Another interview: . (There's more than just her own words, there's also a short introduction.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Another interview: . --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Here's a biographical article on a website named Women's Sports (Женский спорт): .
  The text is not taken from the Russian Misplaced Pages, it is completely different and is well-written. The website seems to be some kind of a web magazine made by a company named Ilin Group. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ooof. Let me see if I can make this more plain. Interviews of the subject cannot count towards supporting notability. Two: A single sentence does not count towards the required "significant coverage." This just can't be that hard to grasp. It doesn't matter if you throw up half a hundred interviews, namedrops, routine match results or casual mentions. 0+0+0+0+0=0. This really is the time for you to read WP:SIGCOV, and not WP:REFBOMB us with any more irrelevant and non-qualifying links. Ravenswing 12:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails significant coverage criteria. As noted above the new suggested sources are not significant by current Misplaced Pages standards.

  Shrug02 (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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. Liz 00:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Dave Walls

• Articles for deletion/Dave Walls
• Articles for deletion/Dave Walls (2nd nomination)

Dave Walls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable sportscaster. Deletion suggested at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mark Spain. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, Sports, and Virginia. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing in the article establishing notability about an unremarkable broadcasting career. 💥Casualty 06:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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 14:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. As always, the key to establishing the notability of radio and television journalists isn't to reference the article to their staff profiles on the self-published websites of their own employers — it's to reference the article to third party content about them and their work in unaffiliated sources. We're not looking for evidence that he exists, we're looking for evidence that his significance has been externally validated by sources that didn't issue his pay stubs, but there's no evidence of the latter shown here. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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.

Collinear gradients method

Collinear gradients method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable variant of Newtons method based upon a single primary source which has only a self-cite, created by a new editor. There are hundreds (thousands) of variants, only the main ones used in major codes and well cited merit inclusion; Misplaced Pages is not an optimization dictionary or how-to guide.

Draft:Collinear gradients method was declined at AfC by KylieTastic on December 29th. Author then copy-pasted it directly into main. Originator ignored WP:NPP notability etc comments, continuing to make minor expansions. Since original editor has contested AfC, it seems that draftification or PROD are inappropriate so straight to AfD. (N.B., possible COI of editor being author of the single source.) Ldm1954 (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Mathematics. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, (1) individual detailed algorithms aren't wikipedia-notable based on a single primary reference; they need to be widely-used and discussed in secondary sources before they are appropriate subjects. So it's WP:TOOSOON at least. (2) we have a duty to our readers to write our articles in the style of an encyclopaedia, not in the style of a primary maths publication. The article is currently written in a way that gives no context, and is incomprehensible to anyone who isn't already a subject-expert. Elemimele (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, this is a reference article, not an encyclopedia. CalculatorOpt (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Based on a research paper cited only once by its own author. Setting aside the poor expository style, which could plausibly be fixed, this does not pass WP:GNG, which requires multiple in-depth independent (and preferably secondary) sources, such as textbook chapters about this method. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  The second source is software for demonstrating the method's features and comparing its effectiveness with many well-known methods. CalculatorOpt (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete not notable, fails WP:GNG. I removed the second source to the rar with complied code that could be any malicious software. KylieTastic (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete for falling very short of our standards about when a topic is article-worthy. XOR'easter (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Juliana Cannarozzo

Juliana Cannarozzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Massachusetts. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Deriannt (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Not enough secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Subject easily meets WP:SPORTBASIC with a couple dozen sentences of independent coverage here, not including quotes of course, as well as a half-dozen sentences of coverage here. JTtheOG (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: While it would be nice if there were more sources, the sources uncovered by JTtheOG contain the needed coverage to meet the WP:NBASIC as they provide in-depth coverage of the subject. Let'srun (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  It's too bad this skater couldn't follow up that coverage with any meaningful results. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Baynews9 is mostly an interview with very little independent coverage, and a local ice show is not significant. The notability is far below that of a local principal, chief firefighter or physician. Geschichte (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Keitaro Koga

Keitaro Koga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Retired in 2014 after 7 appearances in J3, unfortunately fails GNG RossEvans19 (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone 12:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Creator is globally locked. Geschichte (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: No evidence of notability for GNG. CNC (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hiroya Iwakabe

Hiroya Iwakabe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Poorly sourced BLP with no claim to notability. I found Gekisaka and Ameba, but these count for little more than database sources. No evidence of having the significant coverage for WP:GNG and doesn't seem to have kicked a ball since 2017. Japanese Misplaced Pages has nothing to offer. Spiderone 12:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone 12:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 13:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm glad more people are looking into the heap of Japanese football substubs. Geschichte (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete This seems to obviously fail notability. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: No reliable sources, fails GNG. CNC (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Tomoki Kamioka

Tomoki Kamioka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG - has not played since 2016 RossEvans19 (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone 12:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 13:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Not worth a 7 day discussion. Geschichte (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Nothing notable about this player per GNG. CNC (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Fatima Kome

Fatima Kome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested draftify but with no apparent improvement. WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC both require multiple sources showing significant coverage. The only decent source that I can find is Allez Les Lions, which is a fairly standard transfer announcement regarding her move to the second French tier. I am not sure if Allez Les Lions is WP:RS as I couldn't find evidence of fact checking or professional journalism. Aside from that, I found Feca Foot, Chretiens and La Depeche, all of which are clearly trivial mentions. Since all we have is one borderline source, I can't see how this meets the notability criteria. Turkish Misplaced Pages had no decent coverage. Spiderone 12:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cameroon. Spiderone 12:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 13:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Not enough WP:BEFORE was done especially under Fadimatou Kome for this nom as the subject is an international Cameroonian player who plays for a team in the Turkish Women's Football Super League. According to the BBC (and here and here) she competed in the Women's Africa Cup of Nations in 2022. She is mentioned in other local sources including Cameroon Tribune (here and here, here), as well as in La Dépêche du Midi (here). FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I found all of these in my searches but didn't consider them for source analysis as they are all trivial mentions, for example La Depeche is just a passing mention in a match report followed by two squad listings. Some of them are only squad list mentions, like this. I'm not subscribed to Cameroon Tribune but none of the reports look like they address Kome in any significant depth (i.e. multiple sentences about Kome). Which of these sources show SPORTBASIC is met? I'll @GiantSnowman: in any case as more sources have been added. Spiderone 18:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, which sources are meant to be significant coverage? GiantSnowman 19:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman and @Spiderone WP:SPORTBASIC:Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources.. The article about the transfer is solely about her. One BBC article mentioned she received a red card during a game. There are also plenty of databases sources because she is a FIFA recognised senior international who played for Cameroon during major tournaments. I have improved the article with above sources and more.

Given her age, you might argue it’s too soon but regular international football players articles are typically kept. See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football/Notability (not a policy) FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

It is well established that transfer coverage is considered WP:ROUTINE - and the essay you cite clearly states that it "has been superseded by WP:Notability (sports)". GiantSnowman 20:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I mentioned it is not a policy but I have never a saw an article about a senior international FIFA being deleted. I understand women football is not as popular but 19 mentions is alot of mentions even according to WP:SPORTBASIC also not sure how 19 sources are routine including 3 beloved BBC.FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Marcelino Da Costa Fernandes was deleted only a few months ago and he had 3 senior FIFA caps. Even 100 trivial mentions doesn't necessarily equal one piece of significant coverage. BBC is great but the sources are a trivial mention of getting sent off, with no further elaboration, a squad list mention and another squad list mention. None of these articles explore Kome in detail and, in each case, there are several, several other players mentioned at various points in the article. At no point is Kome singled out for special coverage. Spiderone 22:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:NSPORTS2022 paved the way for a change in the notability criteria whereby having caps and/or playing in a professional league was no longer a 'free pass'. Since then, there have been several articles deleted in which a player has been capped. For example, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Zaki, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allyson Jolicoeur, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Marcelino Da Costa Fernandes and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lamberto Gama. Every week, footballer articles are deleted that contain nothing better than transfer announcements or match reports in which the footballer is briefly reported as scoring a goal, getting a yellow/red card, giving away a penalty etc. Spiderone 21:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate you being consistent but dismissing 19 sources as trivia and routine is a bit unfair. I also understand that players who do not play in the Western world can be hard to find sources for, unless you dig in their native language but that is why we have this debates so people can provide evidence.

I provided 19, I will leave it to that. FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Mixin Network

• Articles for deletion/Mixin Network
• Articles for deletion/Mixin Network (2nd nomination)

Mixin Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The crypto exchange with sources only based on 1 event - stealing of 200 mln usd. Literally all 5 sources in the References are only about the same event. Not ready for Misplaced Pages and not enough reliable sources to establish notability per WP CORPDEPTH 89KimberlyRoad (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, Companies, and Hong Kong. Spiderone 12:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I found this article from Arabian Business which was published before the September 2023 hack and provides a few sentences of coverage about the subject. If the consensus is against a standalone article, I support a merge/redirect to Cryptocurrency and crime#Exchanges (where Mixin is mentioned) per Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested. It's sourced, but cringey without any context. Bearian (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Nobitex

Nobitex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Only passing mentions of the subject with little or absent deep media coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH. Not enough notability, remove. 89KimberlyRoad (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and Iran. Spiderone 12:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR. If you remove all the poorly or unsourced content, then we would be left with the critical reporting by Reuters. Bearian (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep this is a very prominent business within the crypto world, The article needs expended with more references. -- Guiy de Montfort de L'Amaury 10:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

BitFlyer

BitFlyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Bloomberg and other kind of good sources have only passing mentions of the subject. The available coverage is insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Finmagnets and other sources are press releases mainly. 89KimberlyRoad (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and Japan. Spiderone 12:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Japan crypto exchange bitFlyer to be sold to Asian investment fund from Nikkei. IgelRM (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Back in 2020-2021 I edited this page because an editor with a COI requested it, and I think that an uninvolved editor should check out such edits rather than forcing them COI editor to either break our rules or not contribute. In this case, the suggested changes were an improvement, so I made the change. Better does not mean good, and much more needs to be done to make this a good article. What I am not seeing is any evidence of notability; just press releases and other attempts to promote the business. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep I would repeat my frequent request that nominators of Japanese-language articles show evidence of a WP:BEFORE search that includes sources in Japanese and competence to evaluate them, but in this case, it seems no WP:BEFORE or review of the Japanese Misplaced Pages article was done at all? In addition to the blurb in Nikkei Asia provided by User:IgelRM above, there is an article in CNBC, one about issuing Japan's first crypto credit card, coverage from The Nikkei , and lots of coverage in tech and crypto media. All of this is linked from the Japanese Misplaced Pages article and show clear evidence that BitFlyer is notable. DCsansei (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Again concur with @DCsansei that there are plenty of Japanese sources, and that it would be great if nominations of Japanese articles showed evidence of WP:BEFORE using a simple Japanese google search. Even then though, I’m confused how the sources already given in this article by the WSJ etc could be considered passing mentions when they directly refer to the company and its activities. I find this nomination unusually confusing.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Just a comment: Bloomberg is no longer as reliable as it used to be. Bearian (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  That’s only true of straight company profiles as opposed to reported pieces though no? Or am I reading the perennial sources list wrong? this article also has multiple sources from Business Insider, WSJ, Financial Times too though. Even 2-3 of those would satisfy notability, let alone 7-8 plus all Japanese sources. Absurdum4242 (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Bitso

Bitso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An article on a crypto-exchange company, created in a promotional way in a promo tone, with most references only passing mentioning the subject. The available coverage is insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH 89KimberlyRoad (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and Mexico. Spiderone 12:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comments: Just looking at the sources, it has significant coverage. I'm genuinely unsure whether this can be fixed or not. Bearian (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Mohammed Ramzan Ali Miya

Mohammed Ramzan Ali Miya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable writer. No RS found. Taabii (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Nepal. Taabii (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. Whilst there is over 400,000 Nepalis in Qatar, the vast majority are migrant workers and not permanent residents. Since Qatar only grants permanent residency to about 100 people a year, the percent of Nepali permanent residents could be as low as 0.025% of that. So being president of the Nepal-Qatar Friendship Association does not seem to be a good enough claim to notability. Sahaib (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Ryan S Sultan

Ryan S Sultan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject fails to meet Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines for academics or professionals. I cannot find independent, reliable coverage about their work or achievements Cinder painter (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychiatry, and New York. Spiderone 11:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi. New to this. What is required for independent reliable coverage? I see links to edu and gov websites and NBC news. Please help me understand what our criteria is. I am deeply interested in supporting wiki. Infoseeker89 (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Director position at a large institution is not enough for WP:PROF#C6 (head of whole institution) nor #C5 (a step above full professor, such as distinguished professor). Psych is a high-citation field so the double-digit citation counts I found on Google Scholar do not appear to be enough for #C1. No other evidence for notability is apparent. Infoseeker89, you appear to be asking the wrong question, "how can I get this person to appear notable". The correct question for this discussion is "is this person already notable by our standards, or not", and sadly, it looks like the answer is not. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as expressed clearly above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC).
• Delete: As per the comment of David Eppstein. Taabii (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as per David Eppstein. The subject is an assistant professor, thus he is not tenured. We almost never find that non-tenured professors are notable. We are not an electronic portfolio for tenure review. FWIW, I didn't get tenure. Bearian (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

List of economics films

List of economics films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

List has been unsourced since 2011 (the two sources say nothing about a set of economics films) and I am unable to find real-world lists of such films. This is just a hodge-podge list of POV additions of what "feels" right. This does not preclude other more precise list scopes like stock-market films and/or films related to the Great Recession. Erik (talk | contrib) 11:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Economics, and Lists. Spiderone 11:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Economics. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: as a WP:SPLITLIST of Economics film, into which a merge seems warranted anyway, as I mentioned when I DePROded the page today,, but size-wise, a split seems better. Can be improved,. -Mushy Yank. 12:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Actually, economics film is a sham. It was a student's essay, and almost none of the sources bear out. I am putting evidence on that article's talk page now, then I will remove most of that content per WP:BURDEN. This proves why you can't just cite Misplaced Pages to make arguments. Erik (talk | contrib) 12:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. I see you cut the other article quite massively. Feel free to rename the said article Economics in film or whatever you find appropriate. Or to merge the other article into this one and rename it List of films about economics, as it is less a "genre" than a topic. Books on the subject include Economics in Film and Fiction (2009); The Representation of Economics in Cinema: Scarcity, Greed and Utopia (2021); you can also use this kind of lists: https://inomics.com/blog/10-more-movies-economists-will-love-1531227, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26725780But it does seem to meet WP:NLIST as a set, even independently of the main article, so I'll stand by my !vote. I will not edit those pages myself, being a bit busy. -Mushy Yank. 13:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that economics in film could exist. The current prose article likely needs a complete overhaul since it was primarily a POV essay. As for listing, you're advocating that we should have a list of films about economics based on a corporation's list of "films that economists love" and on a list of "greatest films for teaching economics". Neither list are actually directly "about" economics, as most films can be read economically (or to go higher-level, philosophically) and should not be shoehorned in. The concept of economics is too broad, where we could more readily have a list of stock market (or Wall Street) films (I've seen WP:NLIST-satisfying sources for these) or films related to the 2007-2008 financial crisis (likewise). There is no clearly-defined list scope here for economics films or films about economics, though. We shouldn't try to make fit what was masquerading to fit in the first place. Erik (talk | contrib) 14:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Link to evidence here: Talk:Economics film § Evidence of essay approach. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) 12:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NLIST and the fact that this doesn't do much more what Category:Business films, Category:Documentary films about business and Category:Documentary films about economics do (no Category:Films about economics?). (Owning Mahowny is an economics film???) Clarityfiend (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

2017–18 FC Chernihiv season

2017–18 FC Chernihiv season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Another season article with no prose on a season so far down the Ukrainian pyramid that it is highly unlikely to have any notability per WP:GNG. In the unlikely event that something noteworthy did actually happen in this season, it could be summarised at FC Chernihiv, which currently lacks meaningful prose. Spiderone 11:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Ukraine. Spiderone 11:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete—Clearly stated reasoning. Lacks meaningful prose and is attached to a stub article to begin with. Anwegmann (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Fail to reach WP:GNG (WP:SPORTCRIT / WP:NTEAM) criteria. QEnigma talk 18:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

2018–19 FC Chernihiv season

2018–19 FC Chernihiv season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A season 'article' with no claim to notability. Chernihiv played in an amateur, regional league during this season. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG has been presented by the article's creator. Long-term AfD consensus on Misplaced Pages has always been that we do not have articles on seasons at this level unless there is clear evidence of significant coverage. Even if something noteworthy did happen this season, it could easily be summarised at FC Chernihiv instead, an article that currently has almost no meaningful prose. Spiderone 11:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Ukraine. Spiderone 11:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete—Clearly stated reasoning. Lacks meaningful prose and is attached to a stub article to begin with. Anwegmann (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Fail to reach WP:GNG (WP:SPORTCRIT / WP:NTEAM) criteria. QEnigma talk 18:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Vladyslav Panko

Vladyslav Panko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Played only 5 minutes of football in the second tier of Ukraine before disappearing. None of the references come close to meeting WP:GNG. The best source found in my own searches was Cheline, a routine contract announcement, most of which is copied from his club's Facebook page. Spiderone 11:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Spiderone 11:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete—Agreed on all counts. As with many Chernihiv and Chernihiv-adjacent players, this one clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Can this please go through WP:PROD? Geschichte (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It could but PROD is only a soft delete and I would prefer a hard delete. This user persistently recreates Chernihiv articles - see, for example, Oleksandr Rudenko. Spiderone 23:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Found no coverage, fails GNG. CNC (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Dr. K. Dakshinamoorthy Sthapati

Dr. K. Dakshinamoorthy Sthapati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article does not appear to meet WP:GNG for WP:BIO on WP:ARCHITECT. I noted that the article mentions awards and projects but these lack independent and reliable coverage (WP:RS). Most sources cited are primary or fail to provide in-depth analysis. Also, the tone of the article appears promotional (WP:PROMO), contrary to WP:NPOV. Nxcrypto Message 11:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone 11:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: article violating WP:NPERSON and WP:GNG as there is a lack of independent coverage in RS. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Denis Bališ

Denis Bališ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

He only played one professional match for Spartak Trnava before disappearing over ten years ago. News sources from my search motivated him from being the son of a former footballer, falling under WP:NOTINHERITED. The articles of his football relatives (father Igor and brother Boris) also have not provided significant coverage since those were created, so if there is no consensus, I would suggest either "redirect to Igor Bališ" or "delete". ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: I did some quick research, and no sources were found to qualify him for a Misplaced Pages page. I did find this article, but I don't think it would make a difference. Aona1212 (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  That source is just a passing mention on squad list: Krakovany vs. Siladice 0–4. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect Igor Bališ appears to be a notable former Trnava player. We can simply mention that his sons Denis and Boris are also footballers in the family section of his article. Newklear007 (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Giorgi Parpalia

Giorgi Parpalia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No indication of meeting WP:GNG. He played 1 match in the second tier league, the Ukrainian First League, before spending the rest of his career in the second tier of Georgia. Searches in Ukrainian (Гіоргі Парпалія) and Georgian (გიორგი ფარპალია) failed to yield anything significant, which is unsurprising as he barely had a professional career. All I could find was coverage on similarly-named players, like Giorgi Papava and Giorgi Kvilitaia. Spiderone 11:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Georgia (country). Spiderone 11:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete—Agreed on all counts. As with many Chernihiv and Chernihiv-adjacent players, this one clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Fail to reach WP:GNG (WP:SPORTCRIT) criteria. QEnigma talk 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Not notable per GNG, found no coverage. CNC (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

250 (number)

250 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Compared to the standards at Misplaced Pages:Notability (numbers), info in the article seems somewhat trivial. -- Beland (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Notability (numbers)#Notability of specific individual numbers lists three criteria for the notability of integers. I believe this article should likely be kept because it meets at least two out of three of the criteria.

1. Unfortunately, I'm not well-versed in what is considered an "interesting mathematical property" of a number; I'll leave that to the folks at WikiProject Numbers.
2. In Chinese culture, some pronunciations of 250 are used as an insult — "二百五" in particular. This is non-trivial, since it has implications on corporate decisions — for instance, the Gulfstream G280 was originally the Gulfstream G250 but was renamed due to concerns about the original name's implications on the Chinese market. See this Fortune China article and this FLYING Magazine article for details. This was originally in the article, but was removed as "trivia" — I believe the G250 example sufficiently demonstrates that it is not.
   • Chinese has plenty of other number-based slang, such as erbaiwu, or “250,” which means “idiot” The New Republic article on Chinese slang
   • The only problem with the number 250 is that you need to remember that the number represents an idiot. If you speak to a Chinese person and say the number 250 it will indicate that you are calling the person you are speaking to an idiot. Being called 250 in China is an insult. Forbes Advisor guide to the Chinese number system
   • Istilah ini digunakan untuk menyebut seseorang yang bodoh atau tolol. Konotasinya negatif, jadi berhati-hatilah saat menggunakannya, umumnya digunakan dalam candaan antara teman dekat. -> This term is used to refer to someone who is stupid or foolish. It has negative connotations, so be careful when using it, generally used in jest between close friends., according to Google Translate. Post from the Dept. of Mandarin Language at the State University of Surabaya
   • Coverage from Chinese state-owned media on the history of the term
3. On his website, Erich Friedman writes, "250 is the smallest multi-digit number so that the sum of the squares of its prime factors equals the sum of the squares of its digits." Additionally, in David Wells's Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, he writes, ${\displaystyle 250=5^{3}+5^{3}=13^{2}+9^{2}=15^{2}+5^{2}}$ is the second sum of 2 cubes which is also the sum of 2 squares in more than one way.

Feel free to point out mistakes in this analysis; I'm quite new to AfD and still learning! If you do respond, please ping me so I can read through your feedback. Best, Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Courtesy ping for @Beland — I can hardly ask for one myself if I don't ping you too! Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I've requested more opinions from Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Numbers and restored the item on Chinese slang. -- Beland (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. (1) This is a round enough number to be culturally significant. (2) We actually have sourced information about one particular kind of cultural significance in the article. (3) For small enough numbers that are not individually significant, we round them to tens or hundreds and summarize the rounded numbers in a single grouped article. For this number, rounding it would put it at 250 (number), where we already have it.(4) The listing by Wells described above is explicitly given in WP:NNUM as a criterion for notability of individual numbers. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Passes the relevant standard. XOR'easter (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. Also, there is a lot more to add; see United States Semiquincentennial. Bearian (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

270 (number)

• Articles for deletion/270 (number)
• Articles for deletion/270 (number) (2nd nomination)

270 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Compared to the standards at Misplaced Pages:Notability (numbers), info in the article seems somewhat trivial. -- Beland (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep - Number is significant outside mathematics, especially in U.S. politics as it is the number needed to win the electoral college. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. I think being a small example of a harmonic divisor number, the culturally significant number of being a way to describe a 3/4 turn, and the application to US politics make three interesting unrelated properties, enough for WP:NNUM. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Looks like there's enough to go on for a short page, and we might be able to say more (I found , for example). XOR'easter (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. It's a good place for our core readership to research the United States Electoral College. Bearian (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Tobi Asehinde

Tobi Asehinde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All the sources fail WP:GNG and cannot establish WP:SIGCOV of the subject. They are either puff piece, our story section, no single mention or or pass mentioned sources. Ibjaja055 (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, Africa, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hello @Ibjaja055,

  I would like to kindly request that we reconsider the potential deletion of the Tobi Asehinde article, as I believe it now better aligns with Misplaced Pages's notability and content guidelines. Recent improvements have been made to strengthen the article with additional independent, verifiable sources and detailed context on his professional achievements, philanthropy, and impact in the digital marketing industry.

  Key Improvements

  1. Enhanced References: The article now includes third-party sources such as BusinessDay NG, Vanguard, and TechCity, which highlight Asehinde’s contributions to the global digital skills market and the creation of job-matching platforms for African talent.
  2. Increased Context on Leadership Roles: Detailed information on his leadership within the Nigeria-Britain Association and other organizations has been added to show his broader influence beyond his business ventures.
  3. Relevant Links to Related Topics: The updated article connects Asehinde’s work to the ecosystem of African digital entrepreneurs, linking it to figures like Sim Shagaya and Abasi Ene-Obong, improving its integration with related Misplaced Pages content.

  Notability Criteria

  Asehinde’s significant contributions to education technology, job creation, and youth empowerment align with Misplaced Pages's guidelines for notable entrepreneurs and business leaders. His work addresses key global challenges in employment and digital skills development, and he has received recognition in reputable publications.

  I believe these improvements make the article more balanced, verifiable, and informative. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this discussion and respect the consensus-driven process. Thank you for your time and consideration. MercifulEmma (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Nothing to establish WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: In my opinion, there is no valid secondary sourcing provided to prove notability enough to warrant a page under WP:ANYBIO. Also, BellaNaija is a fashion blog, not a newspaper. It is not practicing journalism in my view, it never seems impartial and only writes "puff" pieces. Yet this same website is listed in so many different articles that are up for deletion. Mamani1990 (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

1701 (number)

1701 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Info in the article seems a bit trivial. -- Beland (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Compared to the standards at Misplaced Pages:Notability (numbers), that is. -- Beland (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per Misplaced Pages:Notability (numbers). None of the properties of this number listed here are interesting. Even the one that is plausibly a notable property, being a Harshad number, is not interesting: there are infinitely many Harshad numbers and this one is far far down in the sequence, so far that it is neither listed in the initial part of the sequence given by our article nor OEIS. And the Star Trek trivia isn't even about this number; it is just about a digit sequence that happens to be part of an alphanumeric designation of a fictional spaceship, not about the number that the same digit sequence represents. At best it would belong on a disambiguation page for 1701, not on the article about the number. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep Using the "nice" keyword on OEIS as a reasonable proxy for when a property might be deemed "interesting", I was able to scare up three examples, but one is equivocal, since 1701 appears way down the list; another strikes me as rather arcane and base-specific. The third is the best I could find. (Just being somewhere among the Stirling numbers of the second kind isn't remarkable, but being the largest ${\displaystyle \left\{{n \atop k}\right\}}$ for some ${\displaystyle n}$ is a little more noteworthy.) If I followed my own tastes, I'd have two "interesting" properties and would recommend a weak delete; sticking with how these discussions have interpreted OEIS tags for consistency, I'd end up at a weak keep. XOR'easter (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

213 (number)

• Articles for deletion/213 (number)
• Articles for deletion/213 (number) (2nd nomination)

213 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not sure anything in the article establishes that this is an interesting number based on the linked guideline. -- Beland (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Meets criteria 1 and 3 of the guideline. Peter James (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The permutation property is not really about 213 as a number. But I think the Levine sequence property and the square-sum-of-distinct-factorials property are interesting, and this number appears early as an example of both properties. That's not quite the three interesting properties asked for by WP:NNUM, but that's why my keep is only weak. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep To the properties already cited, we could add this (answer to a combinatorics problem), this (appearing early in the nontrivial part of a sequence) and possibly this (appearing early in an easy-to-define but hard-to-calculate sequence). XOR'easter (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

TACTIC (web framework)

TACTIC (web framework) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems to have been created by IP editors for promotional purposes. Tagged for notability. -- Beland (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

delete The only verifiable notable thing about this is the size of the project in terms of lines of code, which means nothing. No independant sources can be found. I tried looking around for people asking for support (which would give an indication re: the number of users) but all i could find was their first party forums full of literal spam Themoonisacheese (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Butt-Head

Butt-Head (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Like Beavis, this article has no WP:SIGCOV at all per WP:BEFORE. Most of the sources talked about the film Beavis and Butt-Head, instead of the characters. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 10:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 10:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect or merge per nom. Most sources really don't separate this character from the plot, let alone from the other main character. This doesn't have distinct WP:SIGCOV for its own article. This is a WP:NOPAGE situation where the essential details can be covered at the main Beavis and Butt-Head series article. Any additional plot information can be covered at the individual works. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect per Shooterwalker. Series is notable but there's not really much discussing Butt-Head independently of the series, or even Beavis himself. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect for the reasons I laid out at the Beavis AfD. Note that the current hatnote on this page for butthead should be transferred if the redirect is created. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to be consistent with Beavis. Neither character has WP:SIGCOV, as the nomination stated. Jontesta (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Georg C. F. Greve

Georg C. F. Greve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability for over 4 years, seems to have been (self?) created for promotional purposes. -- Beland (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Article entirely lacks secondary sources. If there is any notability here, it would appear to be exclusively around the subject's involvement in FSFE and a separate article is not warranted. Brandon (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Colt MARS

Colt MARS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability for over a decade. -- Beland (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

.375 Winchester

.375 Winchester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability for almost 2 years. -- Beland (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep - useful reference page for the calibre with the relevant standards and load data referenced - limited use outside of a specialist community but still valuable data to retain as the ammo and rifles remain in use. 147.161.216.202 (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

.56-56 Spencer

.56-56 Spencer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability, thin on sources since 2013. -- Beland (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Please do not delete the 56-50 Spencer. This rifle and cartridge originated during the Civil War period. Mr. Spencer took one of his rifles to the White House and showed it to President Abraham Lincoln. The president was so impressed he asked Mr. Spencer to come back the next day so that the President could shoot the rifle. They set up targets where the Lincoln Memorial is now located. The President was so impressed that he ordered the Army to order as many as could be produced. All guns have import history about and around them. It is important! 2600:1700:165E:810:F0C5:536E:3122:EE2 (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep We should not delete on the absence of citations in one version of the article, but as to whether such sources exist or not. Although clearly a dead-end in firearms design, the Spencer rifle and its cartridge was historically important (arguably of course, given that this is a firearms topic) as the first self-contained metallic cartridge for a repeating rifle. Even with such argument as to whether the Henry or the Spencer came first, and what the definition of 'first' is as to workability, this was clearly an important weapon and thousands of them were used in the Civil War. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  agree - keep- the spencer carbine is a historically important firearm 147.161.216.202 (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. No need to for deletion. Let's keep working on the article – and not lose information. Best, --Chris.w.braun (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

.22 BR Remington

.22 BR Remington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability, thin on sources. -- Beland (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Verifiability TYPEINFO (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

7mm Remington Short Action Ultra Magnum

7mm Remington Short Action Ultra Magnum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability, sounds a bit promotional. -- Beland (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  like a lot of these you have tagged - it's a reference article taken from the manufacturer published data - often with these there is no other reference material - taking them off Misplaced Pages will just make this info even harder to find for enthusiasts and researchers 147.161.216.202 (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Removing non-notable information makes notable information easier to find in the encyclopedia, so the question is it notable enough to include, or should we ask those people to search other databases? I have no particular opinion, other than that if kept the article be neutralized and affixed with a different tag. -- Beland (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

.32 Remington

.32 Remington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability for a year. -- Beland (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

.25 Winchester Super Short Magnum

.25 Winchester Super Short Magnum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability for 2 years. -- Beland (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

.348 Winchester

.348 Winchester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability for 2.5 years. -- Beland (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Drive-by 'notability' tagging by an editor with no other involvement in the article is no reason to delete an article on a clear topic with multiple sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  perhaps the editor who tagged it for deletion should try to find some references for the item listed instead of flagging for deletion. .348 WINCHESTER is still produced and used. As such, it would be wrong to delete this article. 63.210.244.190 (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  I have no interest in improving firearms articles. My purpose is simply to either drop the notability tag or drop the article, to clear out the decision queue. If we keep, it can be retagged as needing more sources. -- Beland (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Nese Server 2008 R2

Nese Server 2008 R2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT according to my searches. The creator also seems to have some sort of WP:COI with NeseOS Corporation. Spiderone 10:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Seems to be a non-notable software project, couldn't find any evidence of notability or meaningful secondary coverage. MCE89 (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, no sources found. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG, nothing usable found. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Théo Emmanuelli

Théo Emmanuelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Player made one five-minute Ligue 2 appearance in 2021. I found some coverage here, transfer coverage here, and here, but no real significant coverage. Player just transferred to fourth-division side Granville at age 24. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and France. Spiderone 09:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

 Note: since this nomination (or the same morning at least) there has also been this press release and this passing mention. It doesn't amount to sigcov, but it might be worth draftifying with two new references this week. @Paul Vaurie @GiantSnowman CNC (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Routine transfer news of a player leaving one National club to go to another. GiantSnowman 16:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

English Australia

English Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is supposedly about an industry association for English language schools in Australia, but contains almost no information about the actual association. Instead, almost the entire article reads as an unsourced advert/guide for how to apply to English language courses in Australia. I wasn't able to find anything to suggest that the organisation itself would meet WP:GNG - their media releases are sometimes quoted in specialist publications, but there doesn't seem to be any secondary SIGCOV. The title could potentially be turned into a redirect for either English Australians or Australian English? MCE89 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MCE89 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. Spiderone 09:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: I replaced the questionable unsourced content with new content and secondary sources. It now meets notability and has adequate sources for a stub class article. Rublamb (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Definitely a massive, massive improvement, thank you for that! I've had a look at the new sources, but I'm not really convinced that they're sufficient to demonstrate notability. Of the new sources, the only secondary sources that go beyond very brief mentions of English Australia/the ELICOS Association are the articles in The Koala and The PIE News, both of which are pretty niche publications on international education. The PIE News one is solid, but The Koala essentially repeats the content of an appeal that English Australia sent to its members and ends with "The Koala wishes English Australia well in the running of its campaign", so I'm unsure of whether this really counts as significant coverage from an outlet independent of the subject, or to what extent The Koala is a reliable source. So of the new sources the only one that seems to me like it can be counted towards notability is the article in PIE, which wouldn't be enough to meet GNG. MCE89 (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know if this would help, but there seems to be significant coverage of the institution from The Canberra Times, located here 2024 is Underway (talk) 07:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• I assume you mean this article ? There are a couple of other Canberra Times articles but they seem to just quote an ELICOS Association spokesperson. It's definitely something, but the coverage is still very, very thin IMO - we've got an article from 1992 that spends a couple of paragraphs saying the organisation exists and is unhappy about a policy, and an article from 2023 in a relatively obscure publication saying that it's celebrating its 40th anniversary. Possibly it scrapes by on those two sources, but I'm not 100% convinced by the Canberra Times article - the article is mostly about the policy issue and all it really says about the ELICOS Association is that it isn't happy about it, so I'm not really sure it qualifies as SIGCOV of the ELICOS Association. MCE89 (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  You make a compelling point, but I did manage to find this . The organisation seemed to have an annual conference in the 1990s, which they documented heavily, with each year having a book that is over 200 pages. And they seemed to have reports from other companies made for them , . I believe the contents of these reports could lead to notability. 2024 is Underway (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we can consider those towards notability - they're reports that English Australia/the ELICOS Association commissioned or published, so they don't qualify as secondary sources independent of the subject. Unless there's secondary coverage of their conferences or conference proceedings in reliable sources, which I wasn't able to find on Trove, I don't think it gets us any closer to WP:GNG unfortunately. MCE89 (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

While I strongly suggest that this article be kept due to be coverage it provides on Education for overseas students, it could be merged into Education in Australia under a new sub section named something along the lines of "Overseas students" because it is "designed for students who need to learn English before commencing formal studies in Australia" which would be significant to the articles subject. But it would be better to remain as a separate article. 2024 is Underway (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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 speedy delete‎. WP:G7 (non-admin closure) Spiderone 10:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Pickled Egg Records

• Articles for deletion/Pickled Egg Records
• Articles for deletion/Pickled Egg Records (2nd nomination)

Pickled Egg Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

created by mistake, meaning to comment on for user Jonpatterns (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:G7 Spiderone 09:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Tagged as G7. @Jonpatterns: Please note that you can tag any article that you create under this speedy criterion without needing to bring it to AfD. CycloneYoris 09:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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.

Faris Al-Hammadi

Faris Al-Hammadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject does not meet WP:GNG. The article fails to demonstrate any proof of notability and relies heavily on sources from social media platforms such as X, Instagram, and LinkedIn, which are generally not considered reliable. The few non-social media sources included are either trivial mentions or lack the depth and significance required to establish notability.

Based on my research, and after conducting a WP:BEFORE, I could not find independent, reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of the subject. While the individual is a social media influencer with a large following, this alone does not suffice to meet Misplaced Pages's notability standards. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone 10:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:ANYBIO / WP:CREATIVE). Available sources fail to support WP:V. QEnigma talk 13:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep. The current sourcing by the author is a major issue, but the subject seems to have relevant prominence with 750k+ followers. Per WP:BEFORE, subject also appears to be related to Hussain Al Hammadi and other UAE gov operatives. OrebroVi (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that, per WP:INVALIDBIO, notability is not inherited. A subject's relationship with notable individuals or entities doesn't automatically make them notable. According to the notability guideline, notability is determined by significant, independent, and reliable coverage of the subject, not follower counts.

If you or another editor can provide reliable sources showing significant coverage, the article may be reconsidered. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Development Agency (Turkey)

Development Agency (Turkey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I found the source in the Turkish article at https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Kalkinma-Ajanslarinin-Turk-Hukuk-Sistemindeki-Yeri-Ahmet-Tamer.pdf but I think it needs someone more familiar with the subject to figure out whether this is notable. At least one agency still exists https://ankaraka.org.tr/en But are they just window-dressing for development policies which are now top-down? As the Ministry of Development (Turkey) no longer exists how do they work and who controls them? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - There is not much to see here. The article remains unsourced. I don't see any chance for WP:TNT either. Shankargb (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps it could be soft deleted in case anybody wants to get it back on future? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Akkad Bakkad Bambey Bo

Akkad Bakkad Bambey Bo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This page was BLARed in October 2023, and now a duplicate article was created at Draft:Akkad Bakkad Bambey Bo (Tv Show), which I moved to draft because of the duplication. Both pages should be merged if kept. CycloneYoris 08:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris 08:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and India. Spiderone 09:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - per WP:NTVNATL and merge as proposed by the nom. Deriannt (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Vabbing

Vabbing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Two years marked for notability. Flash-in-the-pan? Qwirkle (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Medicine, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Article needs expansion but it has received a good range of coverage ( ) and even been the subject of a systematic review (empty, with no evidence to support it). Astaire (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Still getting coverage in 2024 , showing an extended period of critical notice. This as well .... But why, seriously, why? Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Istanbul Professional League 1

Istanbul Professional League 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged almost a decade ago as unsourced and article does not exist in Turkish so probably not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Football, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to History of Turkish football as possible search term. GiantSnowman 11:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not sure that a redirect would be appropriate given that the topic is not mentioned in the proposed target page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete uncited for 9 years. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

St. Henry District High School

St. Henry District High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Vintage article from when schools had a free pass. This is a non notable school. Fails WP:NORG. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Kentucky. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Covington#High_schools: as an WP:ATD. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Covington#High_schools: as an WP:ATD per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment As nominator I find the suggested redirect wholly acceptable 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 23:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:

  All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)

  Sources
  1. Mayhew, Chris (2017-05-18). "St. Henry District High School plans $6 million addition". The Cincinnati Enquirer. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Newspapers.com.

     The Cincinnati Enquirer is a major newspaper in Cincinnati, Ohio, while the St. Henry District High School is a high school in Erlanger, Kentucky. The article notes: "St. Henry District High School will spend $6 million to build the largest auditorium at any Diocese of Covington Catholic school. ... The auditorium and other projects are phase one of a new financial giving campaign called Building on Excellence, Guided by Faith. This is the Catholic high school's first expansion in more than 20 years. There are 560 students from 20 grade schools enrolled at St. Henry paying a $7,200 annual tuition. St. Henry is the largest co-ed school in the diocese. Enrollment has increased by 18 percent since the school won a 2012 National Blue Ribbon of educational excellence award. Parishes served by the high school include St. Henry and St. Barbara in Erlanger and the Boone County parishes of All Saints, Immaculate Heart of Mary, Mary Queen of Heaven, St. Paul, St. Timothy and Cristo Rey."

  2. Winston, Earnest (1998-11-16). "Diocese blesses N.Ky. school: New St. Henry has room to grow". The Cincinnati Enquirer. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "Senior Anne Schmidt vividly remembers her frustration as she sat inside crowded classrooms at the old St. Henry High School in Elsmere. But the 17-year-old literally hit a high note Sunday. She was among dozens of students who sang during a dedication ceremony for the new St. Henry District High School. An estimated 1,500 people attended Sunday's dedication and open house. ... The $5.6 million facility is the first Roman Catholic high school ever in Boone County, and the first built by the Diocese of Covington in 40 years. The school enrolls about 470 students from seven feeder parishes, but has room for 600.... The school features a "Bricks of Success" wall, which carries 932 engraved bricks bought by alumni and friends. Each came with a pledge of at least $500."

  3. Melman, Karen (1998-11-19). "St. Henry: 'Welcome to the neighborhood'". The Boone County Recorder. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "In 1942, 17 students graduated from a tiny St. Henry High School. Virginia Dahlenburg Reese was among them. Sunday, Reese, a Crestview Hills resident, was one of nearly 1,500 who packed the cafeteria of the new $5.6 million dollar St. Henry District High School, off Donaldson Road. She watched as it was dedicated and blessed by the Most Rev. Robert Muench, the Covington Diocese bishop. ... Today, the school is 467 students strong. And enrollment is expected to jump to 500 next year. ... Located on Scheben Drive, the new building features a chapel, a new cafeteria, sports fields, and a state-of-the art gymnasium that I will soon be built. The names of contributors who donated $500 or more are featured on the "Bricks of Success," a wall inside the school. Many people are to thank, said Principal David Otte, who called the campaign, a "diocese effort." Though proud of the new school-one with a strong 65-year history-the bishop stressed it isn't the "state-of-the art" building that is important."

  4. Gramke, Chris (1998-09-03). "St. Henry students head into school year in new building" (pages 1 and 2). The Boone County Recorder. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "Students attending St. Henry District High School this fall might need directions to find their school. That's because students have a brand-new, state-of-the-art building located at 3755 Scheben Drive they can call home once classes begin on Sept. 8. ... The new building is 70,000 square feet and includes 23 classrooms, a chemistry lab, a biology lab, a cafeteria and a gymnasium. Two computer classrooms and a modern library are also located in the new building. It is the first Catholic high school ever located in Boone County. It's a far cry from the old high school, which had no gymnasium and saw the high-schoolers sharing a cafeteria with the grade school students. ... Not everything is going to be ready when the doors open for students Sept. 8. None of the athletic fields has been completed, which means the high school soccer teams must play their home games at Fox Field in Elsmere for another season."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow St. Henry District High School to pass Misplaced Pages:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Cunard. Vintage article from when schools had a free pass. Almost no secondary schools in North America have been deleted, even since that ended. They almost all have plenty of coverage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Covington#High_schools: The school has a historical relevance but as of now redirection is the best option. Charlie (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
  • If it has historical relevance why are you suggesting redirection? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Necrothesp historical relevance as written in its official website. However, I am unable to find the same historical coverage in secondary sources. Charlie (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion by Cunard that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Bourbon County Schools

Bourbon County Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT prevents unilateral return to Draft, so we are at AfD. Schools and school districts are no longer inherently notable. Fails WP:NORG as presented here. Suggesting Draftify pending further work. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Kentucky. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

İzmir–Nazilli Regional

İzmir–Nazilli Regional (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged over a decade ago as unsourced. Cites on Turkish article are all primary sources and don’t show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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.

Silent Partner (album)

Silent Partner (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM. The Dusted review is the only one I've seen covering this album significantly but the reliability of the website is unclear () and even if it's reliable, it's insufficient. Frost 07:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Please also note Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/CarrionSeasoning. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Denis Kolesnikov

Denis Kolesnikov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:BIO. Not seeing any demonstrated notability for this person. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Skazi (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, Television, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. It is essentially unsourced. Some of the unsourced content is apparently a misinformation, possibly a hoax. My very best wishes (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

ML Lather

ML Lather (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject fails WP:NBIO, no significant coverage about him in sources. Being a former DGP does not make one inherently notable. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Police, Haryana, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

The 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 redirect‎ to Doctor Strange. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorcerer Supreme

• Articles for deletion/Sorcerer Supreme
• Articles for deletion/Sorcerer Supreme (2nd nomination)

Sorcerer Supreme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable role that lists every non-notable character to fill said role in the comics, or every time a character briefly took on the mantle. This role isn't individually notable of any of the actual significant characters who held the role as a major part of their characters, such as Strange or the Ancient One. News searches turned up WP:ROUTINE coverage of the role's various changes in the comics, WP:VALNET sources that don't contribute to notability, or summary style articles that only recap plot info. Scholar and Books yield a few hits that look promising at a glance, but the sources that mention the role are predominantly discussing Doctor Strange, with the role only being brought up as a significant part of his character. This role is not independently notable of Strange or any other character, and is better off redirected to Strange's article, given the bulk of coverage predominantly discusses the mantle in the form of Strange's usage of it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Doctor Strange. I did some digging per WP:BEFORE, but this is the only good source so far . 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 10:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect per Boneless Pizza!. There isn't really much distinct WP:SIGCOV to separate this from Doctor Strange. Other characters are mentioned, and this can be done at that article. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: S in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE should no other coverage can be found. We have to put the information of those other Sorcerer Supremes somewhere on this website including the one from Earth-6160. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  I assume you mean List of Marvel Comics characters: S? Either way, I'd oppose a merge. The Sorcerer Supreme is a role, not a character, and should not be put on a character list. The bulk of the characters on this list link somewhere else already; if they're mentioned anywhere as being Sorcerer Supreme, the explanation that exists at Strange's article should suffice to explain what the role is. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  I corrected the link. Help me out here, but are you suggesting that either you want the page to remain or have an honorable mentioning on Doctor Strange's page while having the other known Sorcerer Supremes transferred to the respectful List of Marvel Comics characters pages if the final outcome of this discussion ends with a merging? --Rtkat3 (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  I believe a redirect to Strange more than suffices. We don't need to add references to a bulk of the characters on the list, since they either have their own articles already, or are so minor and obscure that they don't need to be mentioned. Strange's article more than suffices if an explanation of the Sorcerer Supreme role is needed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect. WP:FANCRUFT failing WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Doctor Strange - He is the character that is most synonymous with the title, and the best sources I am finding that discuss the topic are doing so in the context of it being Strange's role. The actual definition of what the role of "Sorcerer Supreme" means is explained fully in the opening paragraphs of Strange's article already, so no merge is needed. Rorshacma (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

The 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 speedy deleted‎ by DoubleGrazing per criterion A7. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

YBSPoloBabyy

YBSPoloBabyy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This page appears to be an autobiography (created by User:YBSPoloBabyy (talk)), contains no sources and does not meet notability standards. Cyrobyte (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG per a quick Google. Snowycats (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Do not delete YBSPoloBabyy (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

The 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

2024 Jazirah Aviation crash

2024 Jazirah Aviation crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnotable aviation accident. Although a tragic one, this is a routine accident. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL general aviation accident. Tragic, but WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Sufficiently covered at Al Jazeirah Airport, no issue with merging any information here to that article before deletion (but there really is too much detail here per concerns above re: WP:NOTMEMORIAL). I'd have voted redirect as an ATD, but really can't see why anyone would search '2024 Jazirah Aviation Crash'... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Obvious WP:RUNOFTHEMILL article. Protoeus (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete I am confused how this even got past article creations notability standards. Misplaced Pages:NOTNEWS Misplaced Pages:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE apply here for deletion. Lolzer3k 20:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete WP:RUNOFTHEMILL: just another small aircraft crash. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete This accident is related to general aviation, and just because it crashed does not mean it should have its own Misplaced Pages article. These kinds of accidents are run-of-the-mill aviation accidents. See WP:AIRCRASH. ThisGuy (talk to me // contributions) 12:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Per WP:AIRCRASH, This essay includes generally accepted criteria for when to add mention of aircraft accidents to articles about airports, airlines and aircraft type articles. By consensus this should not be used to determine whether a stand-alone article should exist or not. Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Per WP:AIRCRASH Nightmares26 (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Nightmares26. See the comment above. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 17:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per above and WP:EVENTCRIT #4. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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.

Maya Kornberg

Maya Kornberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Previously nominated for proposed deletion by a different editor, but was contested on Talk:Maya Kornberg. The article generally lacks verifiable third-party sources and relies heavily on professional pages as well subject's own personal page. Per WP:Notability, candidates for political office are not inherently notable. Nearly all the sources I could find on Kornberg which may be used to improve the page exclusively focus on her council candidacy and the page was only created following her announcement. Her professional career working in NGOs does not appear notable enough for an article. Because of this, I nominate the article for deletion due to a lack of notability and agree with previous attempt under Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion. --Stanloona2020 (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Women, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes WP:BASIC even without the political candidacy, with coverage such as the independent review for her book Inside Congressional Committees (Columbia University Press, 2023) in the academic journal Congress & the Presidency and the 2010 article about her environmental activism in the Jerusalem Post. She is also quoted frequently in the national media in the U.S. as an expert on Congress and elections. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep : The subject looks notable with independent coverages. Gauravs 51 (talk)

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 redirect‎ to NJ Transit Bus Operations#Divisions, facilities, and operators. Liz 03:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

New Jersey Transit Kearny Point Garage

New Jersey Transit Kearny Point Garage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to NJ Transit Bus Operations#Divisions, facilities, and operators. Fails WP:GNG as I am unable to find any WP:SIGCOV of this bus depot. JTtheOG (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Jersey. JTtheOG (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom. Of the 5 sources, one is a non-RS wiki, one from the operator, and three don't even mention the subject. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Incorrect Toyota683 (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to NJ Transit Bus Operations#Divisions, facilities, and operators. Djflem (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect/Delete -- seems like foamer bs to me.
EDIT: on a second look, looks like there are a bunch of these, all look to be foamer nonsense, and definitely not wikipedia-level stuff imo. Best, MTATransitFan 00:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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.

Sex, Love, Misery: New New York

Sex, Love, Misery: New New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:NFILM, the only mentions of this film are a handful of online reviews from smaller websites. This film has generally positive reviews but isn't otherwise notable. Many editors have tried to improve the article but there isn't much to work with outside those reviews. See Talk page where this was discussed. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, COVID-19, and United States of America. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: per the significant coverage in reliable/ sources. -Mushy Yank. 04:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep This is a relatively low budget independent documentary film, but that does not mean that it is not notable. Rotten Tomatoes is considered a reliable source for review aggregation, per WP:ROTTENTOMATOES, although not every review that is aggregated is automatically presumed to be reliable. In this case, the film has seven reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, all of them generally positive though not overwhelmingly positive. Four reviews are currently used as references in the article. Those four sources, Film Carnage, Film Threat, High on Films and GhMovieFreak are already used extensively as references in many existing film articles. If it is argued and agreed that those sites are not reliable in this article, then it will be necessary to edit hundreds of film articles to remove references to those sources and the content they support. Is the nominator willing to take on that task? A complicating factor in this case is that the article was created by a highly problematic editor who has since been indefintely blocked. However, other editors in good standing have contributed to the article, and we should not delete articles about notable topics just because they were originally written by editors who have later been blocked. That can be perceived as vindictive. The article was Prodded twice but only one prod per article is allowed. I deprodded it. In conclusion, I believe that the best course of action is to keep this article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, Actually, there are 5 reviews cited. -Mushy Yank. 06:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, the fifth review just added as a reference is from BWRC which is also widely cited as a reliable source in film articles. Cullen328 (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  But Jovanmillic97 removed one, so we are back to 4...For the record, unless we are dealing with a BLP and a potentially libelous source, I disapprove the bold removal of content when a page is being discussed, especially when it’s sourced and sources are, precisely, the main point being discussed. -Mushy Yank. 13:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  Cullen328 The "sources are already used extensively in many articles" or that it's a big hassle to edit them all out arguments are very, very thin and neither are based in any Misplaced Pages guideline or policy. Just a cursory search on the first one (Film Carnage) reveals that it's a blog by some Rebecca (film fan with no journalistic credits or anything) reviewing indie films. Is that what are we calling "reliable" nowadays? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  Even if you do not count the reviews from the three sites mentioned below, including the one you mention, 5-3=2, which is the threshold commonly accepted for the number of reviews necessary for a film, and that is based on NFILM and/or GNG. -Mushy Yank. 13:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think we should be wary of reviews from Film Carnage, High on Films, and GhMovieFreak. There are a lot of film articles out there that are under the radar, while articles for mainstream films get a lot of attention. So it's always possible that these proliferated inappropriately and may be propping up other articles falsely. As it has been said, "other stuff exists". We have to remember that at the end of the day, Rotten Tomatoes is a commercial website, so it is financially interested in collating all possible reviews for any film. It's basically like IMDb's External reviews page. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies as I didn't notice the first PROD.

  I came across this article due to the blocked editor, but I didn't want that to be used as a reason for deletion so deliberately didn't mention it here. If the consensus is "keep" then I'm more than happy to tidy up the review section, although I'm not sure how to beef up/expand the remainder since the bulk of the article is the review section - that was one of my concerns during the TP discussion with @Axad12 on what to do next (this is where AFD came up).

  I'll gladly accept & seek out any tips or recommendations on how best to proceed with that endeavour if the article stays, so every post here is really helpful in that respect! Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Keep: Sourcing available in the article itself meets NFILM. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  Question Reading Beans, did you mean to say "Keep"? Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. I’ll change it now. I definitely misclicked. Thank you for letting me know. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete because of the set of reviews for this film, only one is a reliable source: Film Threat. The other reviews are not reliable sources. Being used for the Rotten Tomatoes score does not mean anything since RT is a commercial website that will collate everything possible. It's like a film having an IMDb page with a list of external reviews available. If many Misplaced Pages articles are citing these reviews, that's a big problem. It could be more people like the editor who made this, or editors who thought they can just use any review listed at RT, regardless of reliability. Of course, I work mainly with mainstream film articles, so if there is a WP:RS case to be made for these reviews, go ahead and make it. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry but what makes you say BRWC is not reliable? -Mushy Yank. 13:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  Looking at About Us, I do not see the people involved as having beyond-the-website credentials to be "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject" per WP:SOURCEDEF. In the footer, it proclaims itself as "a blog about films". If it is a blog, it can only be acceptable per WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Google Books here seems to show only one book that has ever referenced BRWC. I don't see anything in Google Scholar either. What is your take? Erik (talk | contrib) 13:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  It’s technically a blog but not in the sense of a personal blog and they have a limited team of contibutors not just whoever wants to write there; they exist since 2008, so they might be considered OK, I guess. And the author of the review seems to have wrtitten a lot of reviews that look Okaysih in terms of quality. GhMovieFreak is a bit of the same, it’s not user-generated. If there was a list like Lists of films about the COVID-19 pandemic, I’d say redirect but there does not seem to be one. And with the Film Threat review, that’s generally reliable, i feel it would be unfair to delete this. -Mushy Yank. 23:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)