Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 21

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David Gerard (talk | contribs) at 13:30, 21 January 2025 (Adding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Functional Decision Theory.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:30, 21 January 2025 by David Gerard (talk | contribs) (Adding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Functional Decision Theory.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday January 22 (Wed) January 21 (Tue) January 20 (Mon) More...
Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< January 20	January 22 >

Guide to deletion Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Purge server cache

Functional Decision Theory

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

No evidence of notability. Article is based around preprints and blog posts - the RSes are not actually about FDT. A call for RSes on the talk page produced nothing. The article needs RS coverage specifically about the topic - David Gerard (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Logic, Philosophy, and Mathematics. David Gerard (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete Yet another example of the fact that little blue clicky linky numbers do not an article make. We can't base an article entirely on preprints and blog posts. (LessWrong is a group blog without editorial review, Medium is a blogging platform, etc.) A paper from 2007 can't contribute to the wiki-notability of an idea introduced 10 years later. A paper from 1979 is likewise background at best. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article that is currently reference #3 makes no mention of FDT, Yudkowsky, or Soares. The 2017 preprint is, well, a preprint on the arXiv, i.e., a self-published source that is primary and the opposite of independent. There are very, very few cases when we can use unrefereed arXiv preprints as sources for anything. For example, we could probably get away with citing John Baez's This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics as a convenience link for a well-known, standard calculation regarding an established topic, so that readers would have an option that is easier and cheaper to get than a doorstopper textbook. But we couldn't take a topic that Baez invented on his blog and write a whole article about it; the fact that he has written other things that establish his subject-matter expert status would be insufficient justification. Searching for sources that are non-primary, reliably published, and providing significant coverage turns up nothing. The best that the literature offers is passing mentions: In response, various other one-boxing theories have been developed (see, e.g. Gauthier 1989; Spohn 2012; Poellinger 2013; Levinstein and Soares 2020) . The closest approach to a usable source is the 2021 monograph by Ahmed on evidential decision theory which notes that FDT has been proposed as a competitor but concludes that it is not a fully baked theory yet: How best to spell this out is not yet clear; there is currently lack of clarity surrounding the counterfactuals at the heart of FDT. (The fact that the Functional Decision Theory article right now doesn't make clear that the best available source says that FDT has yet to be developed in a mathematically rigorous way makes this article a violation of NPOV.) Perhaps those brief remarks could be scraped together to justify a few lines in another article, to which this could be made a redirect. That would probably involve improving the decision theory article, which currently doesn't explain either causal or evidential approaches (leaving them to languish in the "See also"). Perhaps an "Other" subsection could be crafted that summarizes the various proposals and counter-proposals in this area. XOR'easter (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

2024 Orbic Air Eurocopter EC130 crash

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

Non-notable aviation accident; though it resulted in six fatalities and no survivors, it doesn't meet the notability for events. Helicopter accidents are also common in aviation. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 13:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 13:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 13:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 13:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge: The crash itself is run-of-the-mill from an aviation point of view, and fails WP:EVENT in particular due to the lack of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the initial news cycle, and lack of WP:LASTING effects. There are however some details that could be usefully merged to the articles of one or both of the notable people killed in this accident: Herbert Wigwe and Abimbola Ogunbanjo. After the merge, I'd suggest redirecting to Herbert Wigwe § Death as he seems to be the more notable of the two. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep: I entirely disagree with the nom and the merge !voter. This is a clear-cut WP:GNG pass, WP:NEVENT aside, evidently from the sources and from a cursory search. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
•Keep Per above, are we just purging aviation accidents and incidents in 2024? Lolzer3k 21:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

New Jersey Transit 6539-6549

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

A non-encyclopedic article about a group of 11 buses, with such detail as their license plate numbers. Alansohn (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and New Jersey. Alansohn (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete as utterly non-notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete - zero indication of notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete per WP:N. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: This is definitely one of those pages that clearly makes more sense on another wiki and not Misplaced Pages — and indeed, a good chunk of it was, after this nmination, removed as a copyvio of another wiki. (Even what remains has enough similarities to make me wonder if this should have been a G12 candidate.) There's no way this meets NLIST; indeed, it probably fails NOTDIRECTORY too. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete – The page is a list article that is not encyclopedic. I personally agree with what everyone said above my message. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 21:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Unsourced bus fancruft. Does not deserve to have a place on Misplaced Pages. Ajf773 (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Rev. Roger Lynn

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

Only notable for one thing, the marriage of Jack Baker and Michael McConnell, to which the article should redirect, per WP:BIO1E. Fram (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Minnesota. Spiderone 18:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Regardless of what happens, the proper title for this article would dispense with "Rev.". ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Did some searching myself, seems like a clear WP:BLP1E; not much notable coverage that isn't related to the one event. ~Darth Stabro 19:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Clear case of WP:BLP1E; no evidence of WP:SIGCOV of the subject at all, just mentions of his role in the ceremony. (The article is also full of original research and the footnotes are a disaster, but that's neither here nor there.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Regrettably, the coverage of this individual is less about them and more about an event they were party to. Since they appear to have otherwise been periphery to the relevant movements/events, I don't see a case for individual notability. A shame, too, as someone clearly worked hard on this article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Faith Global

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

I'm having trouble finding anything to demonstrate that this meets WP:BAND. They only seem to have released one album and an EP, neither of which charted. They only have one notable member. Most importantly of course I can find little substantial coverage in reliable sources. Granted the genuineness of the name makes it difficult, but my WP:BEFORE failed to find any newspaper coverage, or online reliable sources. Some books (e.g. ) include passing mentions, such as a list of other acts Shears participated in. The only semi substantial coverage was a paragraph in The New Trouser Press record guide. But with only on WP:SIGCOV source I can't see how this passes WP:NBAND/WP:GNG Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment There is a 1983 album review in Music Week here. More needed in my opinion. ResonantDis_tortion 22:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Pavel Mašek

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

Unable to uncover significant sources which discuss the subject independently and in detail. C 679 11:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Softball, and Czech Republic. C 679 11:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Hajirhat Thana

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

Unable to find sources that show that this meets WP:GNG. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Bangladesh. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Gujarat Adani Institute of Medical Sciences

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

The current article relies on just two sources: one from the college itself and the other from the Adani Foundation's website, both of which lack reliability. Upon researching the institution before nominating the article (WP:BEFORE), I found only routine coverage. This clearly indicates that the article fails to meet WP:GNG. Additionally, it also fails to comply with WP:UNIN Baqi:) (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Gujarat. Baqi:) (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Page fails WP:NCORP. No secondary independent sources on the page with any notable significant coverage. This article does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant any significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Shobani

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

Lacks notability. Allegedly charted one week on a local Shazam chart, discussed only in unreliable sources (blogs, "articles" which are just glorified press releases, ...). Fram (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Nigeria, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The "Shobani" article should not be deleted. While I understand concerns about the reliability of sources, I am actively working to add more credible references. Deleting the article would remove valuable content that can be improved. Misplaced Pages articles are works in progress, and I am committed to enhancing this one. I ask for patience as I continue to update and refine the article. Kyledave2025 (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Non-notable musician, a top 21 stream in one American city is not what we use for notability. This found , doesn't help much... Very much non-notable. No charted singles, no record releases on a major label, no awards won. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. I can find no suggestions that the song is independently notable, or I would suggest draftifying the article. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 15:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

List of cinemas in Metro Manila

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

Misplaced Pages is not a business directory. Only one cinema has an article and the rest of the entries listed are almost entirely chains with cinemas attached to shopping malls. A whole lot of indiscriminate accompanying stats and features. Lack of secondary sources also means it fails WP:NLIST Ajf773 (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philippines, Lists, and Film. Ajf773 (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom and as a WP:TNT delete. I'll change my vote to keep if someone change it. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep: Can be improved (and should). Covered as a set in Dalton, David, and Keeling, Stephen. The Rough Guide to the Philippines, Rough Guides Limited, 2011, .p. 102, for example. Well-structured, offers context. The topic meets NLIST imv. A decent SPLIT from both pages about Philippine cinema and Manila. The historical aspect of the topic (as a set; growing number of venues, for example, relatively high (and at a relatively early period) number of cinema theatres in the Philippines but with, precisely, a concentration of the country's screens in Manila, etc.) is covered in Early Cinema in Asia -Mushy Yank. 08:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep as per the sources identified above by Mushy Yank that contribute to a pass of WP:NLIST in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Early 1989 Demos

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

Lacks all notability, no indepth reliable sources Fram (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. Fram (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to The Smashing Pumpkins discography and create a brief entry there for this album (compilation of three other demos already listed). Early 1989 Demos really is a stand-alone album that was independently released, and it has an AllMusic review: . However that is the only reliable review I can find, so we don't have enough different robust sources to support an article here. At the Talk page, the article creator has protested that this is a repeat of a long-standing article at a Smashing Pumpkins wiki: , but that doesn't mean it qualifies for an article here because this is not a place to repeat fan trivia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Electronics Mart India Limited

AfDs for this article:

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Andhra Pradesh. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Aurum Proptech Limited

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Maharashtra. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete The article doesn't show notability, and a WP:BEFORE search didn't find anything that would meet WP:ORGCRIT. It's all self published resources, routine announcements and trivial coverage, mainly in press releases. Bakhtar40 (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

World Defense Show

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating the article two months after the "no consensus" decision in the second AfD. Reason is same: The exhibition fails to meet WP:EVENT. Lacks WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:DIVERSE. Arguably WP:TOOSOON. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Saudi Arabia. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment

Source assessment table
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.worlddefenseshow.com/about-the-show/wds-leadership/		Team information from the official website	✘ No
https://euro-sd.com/2023/06/news/32396/world-defense-show-in-riyadh-announces-surge-in-interest-at-paris-air-show/			✘ No
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ukraine-crisis-delays-ak-203-assault-rifle-deal-with-russia/article65221831.ece		The article is talking about AK-203 and Ukraine war	? Unknown
https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/4065746/saudi-arabia-japan-sign-15-agreements-establishing-qualitative-partnership	~	No mention of the World Defense Show	? Unknown
https://english.alarabiya.net/News/gulf/2022/03/10/Saudi-Arabia-s-first-World-Defense-Show-in-Riyadh-ends-with-7-9-billion-in-deals	~		✘ No
https://saudigazette.com.sa/article/616815/SAUDI-ARABIA/Saudi-Arabias-World-Defense-Show-ready-for-launch-after-selling-out-all-exhibition-space		Seems to be a paid coverage	✘ No
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/thaad-to-guard-saudi-arabia-riyadh-adds-teeth-to/		Trivial mention	? Unknown
https://saudigazette.com.sa/article/635807/SAUDI-ARABIA/Strong-international-demand-leads-to-sell-out-of-second-world-defense-show			✘ No
https://www.timesaerospace.aero/news/events/defence-heads-and-industry-influencers-to-speak-at-world-defense-show		Seems to be a paid coverage	✘ No
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defence-notes/sponsored-be-immersed-in-pioneering-tech-innovation-at-world-defense-show-2024/		Seems to be a paid coverage	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete Per source analysis by TCBT1CSI, Unable to meet WP:EVENT. Bakhtar40 (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete Helping this along; this show seems like less of an arms show and more a tourist trap to get defense contractors to come to the country to show off their wares and get the attention of higher-ups; very doubtful that your average Riyadhi is attending this at all. Nate • (chatter) 00:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Bollajira Aiyappa

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

I removed a chunk of copyvio text from the article that had been copied from the first reference . The remainder does not seem to establish notability under any criteria that might apply, e.g. WP:NACTOR, WP:NBUSINESS (as founder of a publishing house), WP:GNG. Although there are many references in the article as it stands, they are all passing mentions rather than WP:SIGCOV. There are no linked articles in other language Wikipedias, and my WP:BEFORE turned up no reliable sources with significant coverage. It is of course possible that there is sufficient coverage in local offline sources, in which case I would happily withdraw my nomination. SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and India. SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 08:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Makenna Kelly

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, almost all the cited sources are either primary sources or unreliable sources. Has been identified as such since June 2022, without improvement. Dan arndt (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Internet, and Colorado. Dan arndt (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep The 2022 AfD discussion was keep, with the condition that the flag on notability was added. I have added some sources, where the best coverage is the 2019 article in the Fort Collins paper (though I note she is from Colorado). She has minor mentions in the Boston Globe and the Washington Post (now in article). I have not replaced all the citations to YouTube, though I agree with the 'unreliable source' flags for them. DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I now have access to the Wired magazine article, and that is also significant coverage. My inclination would be to delete the other items that are sourced to YouTube or primary sources, but I think they can remain for now in case someone else finds better sourcing. DaffodilOcean (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 08:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep sources provided in the article provides a strong evidence for notability. (I.e. the Wired UK, Daily Dot, Indian Times) Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep All sources are reliable. With the improvement by DaffodilOcean, it is much better now. Tajotep (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Millennium Bank (Greece)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 08:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

NBGI Private Equity

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 08:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Cindy Carquillat

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Switzerland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Additionally, there is no corresponding article on the German Misplaced Pages. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Some news articles: ("Kurioses ereignete sich bei den Frauen. Cindy Carquillat belegte zwar Rang 1, der Titel wurde ihr allerdings nicht vergeben, weil sie in den Kür-Noten nicht den erforderlichen Schnitt von 4,8 erreichte. Dies ist bei den Frauen noch nie vorgekommen, seit sie 1931 erstmals am nationalen Championat zugelassen worden waren."), (about her qualifying for the Junior Worlds in 2005).
Keep. After all, she did finish first in the national championships. Per WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG too. (She competed almost 20 years ago, she definitely had something written about her in the media back then.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
There may be something here → , but the site doesn't open for me. (I'm tired of this, many sites seem to block Russian IPs, it's impossible to search like this.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment The first source provided has a few sentences, the second one is an article about her, albeit a very short one about her qualifying. The third one that blocked the IP appears to be about changes in the scoring system and is not about her. This SUBJECT appears to be below SIGCOV levels at the moment. In addition I have found a couple of brief mentions in the french media sites la region and arcinfo but well below what is needed to prove GNG. I will have another look later at this one.Canary757 (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
  There are 94 hits for her on e-newspaperarchives.ch. Most look minor but may need a french speaker to judge as some appear to be longer.Canary757 (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Very far from SIGCOV. Both articles mentioned above are routine event results, from the same news site, and the latter is a couple-sentence announcement about a junior career event so is even further from counting toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. All of the results from e-newspaperarchives.ch are passing mentions. BilletsMauves 12:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Al-Shifa ambulance airstrike

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

Fails NOTNEWS. The article does not contain any sources published more than a day or two after the attack, and a BEFORE check confirmed the lack of LASTING coverage. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Meets WP:GNG and very obviously notable. This particular strike was mentioned in dozens of WP:RSs. And there is WP:LASTING coverage. This strike was mentioned as recently as six days ago by Doctors Without Borders (see here). Helleniac (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)WP:STRIKESOCK QuicoleJR (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
@Helleniac: I wouldn't consider a list of every single attack on medical facilities to be significant lasting coverage. Are there any other sources you could cite to show lasting coverage? Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
~~Here is another source, this time from CNN, for lasting coverage from about 3 months after the attack (see here). Helleniac (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)~~WP:STRIKESOCK QuicoleJR (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't see where that source specifically mentions this attack. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
~~Attaching excerpt:~~

"On the same day, an Israeli airstrike hit a convoy of ambulances, which hospital authorities said were being used to evacuate the wounded, including one outside the entrance of Al-Shifa, killing 15 people and wounding 60 others. Videos from the scene, verified by CNN, showed about a dozen people lying bloodied and motionless. Garlasco, who analyzed the footage, said that cubic fragmentation could be seen on the ambulance door, as well as the clothes of people killed and wounded, which was consistent with aftermath from an Israeli Spike anti-tank guided missile." Helleniac (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)WP:STRIKESOCK QuicoleJR (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

~~Another WP:LASTING mention of the attack four months after the fact by Human Rights Watch:~~

"Human Rights Watch documented a strike by Israeli forces on a marked ambulance outside al-Shifa Hospital on November 3, 2023, which reportedly killed 15 people and injured 60. Ambulances are protected civilian objects under international humanitarian law and cannot be targeted when used to treat wounded and sick individuals, both civilian and combatant. Israeli authorities said they intentionally struck the ambulance, contending that it was being used to transport able-bodied fighters. Human Rights Watch investigated these claims and did not find any evidence that the ambulance was being used for military purposes." Helleniac (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)WP:STRIKESOCK QuicoleJR (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Zero coverage in any non-news sources that aren't from the time of the attack. They reported on the news, then moved on. I don't think this is different than any other similar attack, is this long, terrible war. Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
This isn't WP:INTHENEWS, and similitude to other events does not invalidate the notability of the coverage. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Correct, it's the lack of any extended sourcing after the event. Nothing seems to have happened as a result, the individuals involved don't appear to have anything significant happen to them. Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Article is about the strike, the witness, talk of a war crime, then extended coverage about organizations offering an opinion on the event. We need to see WHY this is important, not WHAT people saw or how it made them feel. There's more in the "reaction" section than about the actual incident... This is more of a reactionary article, it appears trying to push a narrative on one side or the other. Few details about the attack, then over half the article talks about how bad it was. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think this is going to get deleted but the CNN reference that treats events around Al-Shifa during the war as essentially a single matter (i.e., they're all covered in a single chapter under a single heading) is a good sign-post as to how this should be treated. Once the heat dies down around this conflict probably we should look at merges. FOARP (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Oaktree b: To be clear, would you be willing to support a merge? Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, if it goes that way, that's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep This event meets GNG. It was covered extensively in RS when it happened and has been mentioned in reports about attacks on healthcare multiple times between 14 Nov 2023 to 31 Dec 2024. See: HRW, HRW 2, CNN, Journal of Palestine Studies, Forensic Architecture, MSF, UN. The airstrike was witnessed by the journalist Bisan Owda and her coverage was mentioned in December 2024 and May 2024 by New Arab and the Peabody Awards. Photos of the aftermath of the attack have appeared with captions in December 2023 and March 2024 in NPR and Mondoweiss Rainsage (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't favour straight deletion of this but it should be pointed out that HRW is a charity, not news media, they are not independent of the topic. The CNN reference is better, but they clearly treat all the attacks around Al Shifa during the period as a single topic and possibly we should too (e.g., merge them to a single article). The Journal of Palestine Studies article gives this specific attack just a couple of sentences as far as I can see. Forensic Architecture is also an advocacy/investigation group - they're not independent of the topic, and so don't indicate notability. Ditto MSF and the UN - NGOs and international government organisations are not independent of the topic. Photos also aren't significant coverage. WP:GNG isn't the relevant standard - WP:NEVENT is which is why we're looking for WP:LASTING coverage, and even if it is notable we may still merge per WP:PAGEDECIDE. FOARP (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I have not heard before that HRW, UN, MSF, and Forensic Architecture don't indicate notability. Can you point me to the relevant[REDACTED] policy?

If I had to choose a place to merge this article to, I think that Al-Shifa Hospital siege is the best choice.

Many of the sources I cited seem to treat the airstrike and the siege as a single topic, as does this Misbar article from Feb 2024 Rainsage (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
The relevant Misplaced Pages policy is WP:GNG, particularly the requirement that the source be independent of the topic. See also WP:NEVENT. Charities reporting on their own work, or advocacy groups reporting on their own advocacy, or investigation groups reporting on their own investigations, are not sufficiently independent of the topic to indicate notability of it (i.e., they would tend to report on it even if it weren't notable). They are of course potentially useful for verifying facts in articles whose notability is already established. FOARP (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep: The basic premise of the filing is simply false. Aside from the significant breadth of the coverage, it was already covered WP:INDEPTH as early as 7 November by HRW as a potential war crime. It was then mentioned again on 14 November by HRW, so already much more than "a day or two" after, and the coverage has only continued from there. It is mentioned in this 22 January paper in the Springer journal of Intensive Care Medicine. Rainsage flags many more instances of subsequent analytical coverage. If a WP:BEFORE check was indeed performed for this page with 35+ RS references, it must have been perfunctory and ineffectual. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment - Does being referred to by Medecin San Frontieres or HRW count as actual coverage in a reliable source for analysing notability - these are both advocacy groups/charities, right? I'd be looking for SIGCOV in a reliable, notability-indicating source a few months out from the event to show WP:LASTING, not just a mention. Do we have that? The Springer reference seems better, but it's' still just one paragraph as far as I can see, which is borderline for WP:SIGCOV. I can see two paragraphs in the CNN article (one long, one very short) which is again a bit borderline.

I'm inclined to give this one the benefit of the doubt since at some point history books are going to be written about this war and this is likely to get a paragraph or two in them. I just don't think we should be treating the output of NGOs and aid-agencies as if they were news sources when analysing notability: accurate or not, their coverage does not indicate notability because they aren't independent of the subject matter.

Long term probably the events around Al-Shifa can be bundled in to a single article for more encyclopaedic coverage (this is how the CNN and Springer references essentially treat it) but that's not an issue for AFD. FOARP (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

merge somewhere not a standalone article. It was one attack in a multi-front battle. Andre🚐 02:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Maybe Attacks on health facilities during the Israel–Hamas war? QuicoleJR (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
CNN treats all the events around Al-Shifa during the war as a single topic, so maybe that's a pointer? Anyway, put me down as Merge too. FOARP (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree. Merge. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
@AndreJustAndre, FOARP, and Zanahary: Would you support my proposed merge target of Attacks on health facilities during the Israel-Hamas war? Asking to make sure these Merge !votes get counted, per Liz's comment below. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I would support it as an improvement over the present status. FOARP (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I would. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment. The Springer article talks about an attack on a hospital, our article about an attack on a convoy. Al-Shifa is mentioned in both and the date matches so I suppose that both try to address the same. That said, is the Springer article individually (as Springer is a good publishing house) a reliable source? I do not see that the article is quoted by us. Also why is our article called Al-Shifa ambulance airstrike if the attack was on a convoy? Not saying any of this must be wrong; just trying to understand some more before forming an opinion. There are a lot of variables in the mix. gidonb (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Notability is based on the sources that exist on a topic both on the page and out there in the ether. This is noted explicitly at WP:BEFORE. Re: convoy Vs ambulance, it was a convoy of ambulances, so there is no contradiction there. Ambulance is just not recognisable, while convoy is rather ambiguous. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! I understand and appreciate that there are many sources from the time this happened, however these sources do not refute the concerns of the nominator. Nominator makes the case of NOTNEWS and LASTING, known concerns with events that are not solved by the GNG. The Springer article is the main argument supporting a LASTING impact, however, it is very different from our article and it may not be a good source itself (not withstanding the Springer reputation.) Next, how was this attack on a convoy of ambulances the Al-Shifa ambulance airstrike? Not clear from the article, the references, the sources, or from your appreciated (!) response. It strengthens the case of NOTNEWS. gidonb (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gidonb: The strike took place just outside of the gates of Al-Shifa hospital involving ambulances associated with the hospital, hence the association. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete -- (weak) -- vaguely agree with nominator. However, I would, alternatively, second Andre in that a merge would be perfectly appropriate. MWFwiki (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Message to participants, if you are going to argue for a Merge or Redirect, you must supply an existing target article at the same time or your argument can't contribute to a decision. Thank you. Liz 08:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge to Attacks on health facilities during the Israel–Hamas war per WP:MERGEREASON#4. BilletsMauves 12:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge to Attacks on health facilities during the Israel–Hamas war. While the article can easily pass WP:GNG, that is not the argument here. The event described was horrendous, but per WP:PAGEDECIDE, Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page. From that perspective, I think merge would be the best option at this time.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge to Attacks on health facilities during the Israel–Hamas war per WP:PAGEDECIDE. FOARP (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Baked Alaska (livestreamer)

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

I question whether this person is notable for any particular reason and wonder why his BLP was created in the first place. soibangla (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep per WP:SK#3 -- nominator has presented an invalid reason for deletion, seemingly a case of "I don't like it". While unfortunate, the subject is notable; the multiple sources covering him that are already in the article reflect this. The nominator has also provided no refutation, or indeed source analysis at all, of the multiple reliable sources about him. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:20BC:5415:7424:8B2A (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep a glance at the sources will suffice to ascertain that this person is notable for being, between 2016 to 2020, a prominent figure of the alt-right movement. One may argue that he is more notorious than notable, but he is still well-known enough to warrant a Misplaced Pages page. He seems to have kept a low profile since he was sentenced over his participation in the Capitol riot, but he was notable enough at the time for the New York Times to report his arrest and publish a piece about him. Psychloppos (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Conspiracy theories, Politics, Internet, Alaska, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Speedy Keep and Close per WP:SNOW per IP above and the fact that the article's sources provided sufficient notability. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Aaron Louis Tordini

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

Non-notable author article, which somebody claiming to be the subject has been editing Orange Mike | Talk 05:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Things That Hang from Trees, unless that page also goes up for deletion. --Richard Yin (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Noémie Silberer

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Switzerland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
There's a three-minute video on the Tribune de Genève website. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep
Here's a news article: . One more: . One more: .
A news article in German about her retiting: . (Just one paragraph, but it's like a mini biography.)
And there are lots of sentence examples featuring her on Linguee.fr: . Sentences from skating.cn and swissolympic.ch. Certainly, there were some articles mentioning her on the internet long ago, but they got deleted since. --Moscow Connection (talk)
Comment: Looking at the sources provided in this discussion, the first article is WP:SIGCOV as it provides multiple paragraphs of coverage about the subject, but the rest of the sources appear to be merely mentions or lack any depth (a couple of sentences at most are actually about the subject). Without evidence of actual significant coverage, we can't have an article on a BLP. Let'srun (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep: I've added updates and removed the outstanding issues in the article.

Nayyn (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete. I disagree that the first article has SIGCOV, as it is almost entirely just reporting what Silberer said/felt. Only the first sentence and part of the penultimate sentence contain secondary coverage. Everything else is routine news or non-independent. JoelleJay (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: As I noted earlier in my source analysis, this BLP appears to lack the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have a divide regarding whether sources are sufficient for a standalone article. Is there any possible ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what ATD means, could you please elaborate? Thank you.

The article is well cited, the text is accurate and the sources are appropriate. There have been many deletions of female skaters lately. Deleting makes it a lesser Misplaced Pages. Nayyn (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

ATD = alternative to deletion. Mostly merging or redirecting, sometimes adding something to a list. Geschichte (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Geschichte. An "alternative to deletion", through merging, redirection or draftification, serves to preserve some of the content, at least in the page history if not elsewhere but also removes a standalone article from main space. For example, we have many articles that are written about non-notable songs and those articles are often merged or redirected to the article for the album. I hope this explains the shorthand, "ATD". Liz 23:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Jim Zheng

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

Does not appear to meet notability. One link is dead, the other reads like a promotional press release. Searching Google yields very little worth mentioning. QuiteBearish (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 21. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment. He holds a named chair, Sprint Eminent Scholar Chair & Professor, Electrical Engineering. This is usually a sign of notability. I found an Internet Archive copy of the broken link and added it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Florida. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. He has moved from the named chair at Florida State noted above to being SUNY Empire Innovation Professor at the University of Buffalo, so that's a double pass of WP:PROF#C5. He is also a Fellow of the National Academy of Inventors and a Fellow of the IEEE, so that's a double pass of #C3. The article as nominated was a badly written stub that said none of this, but see WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
PS also heavy citations give a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. An easy pass of WP:NPROF notability, meeting multiple criteria when only one is needed. Let's fix problematic articles, not just delete them. Qflib (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Mariana Serbezova

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

Still fails SPORTSCRIT. Courtesy ping Geschichte Jay Cubby 04:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Olympics. Jay Cubby 04:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
What Bulgarian newspaper archives did you look in for this offline-era Olympic medalist and world silver medalist? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete the best I could find was 1 line mentions in google books. Unless someone finds coverage in Bulgarian, she fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article was PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Shukra (film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Some sources are simply the trailers, and nearly all of the cited reviews are listed as generally unreliable on WP:ICTFSOURCES (123telugu, IndiaGlitz, FilmiBeat), or don't provide enough coverage (Telangana Today). No idea about the reliability of the 10tv.in review, but the theprimetalks.com source looks more like a blog. It is entirely possible that I missed some coverage in Telugu, so please ping me if more sources are found. ARandomName123 (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. ARandomName123 (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to Arvind Krishna (actor): A film requires two full-length reviews to pass WP:NFILM. We have one from Filmibeat which although considered an unreliable source, was written by a seemingly reputable journalist, Rajababu A. There is another review from NTV which has a byline. The remaining reviews available online do not have bylines. I believe the film was released during COVID19, so there'll be less coverage compared to others. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey, @ARandomName123 This is Sazh, and I had the privilege of working with team of Shukra. As noted, the film was released during the COVID-19 period, which significantly impacted its promotional activities due to limitations faced by the PR and digital marketing teams, and my sincere thanks to @Jeraxmoira for identifying the review from NTV. Considering these unique circumstances and the challenges in sourcing comprehensive reviews for the film, I kindly request you to review the provided sources and issue the clearance! Thesazh (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It is not advisable to create articles in which you have a conflict of interest, nor is it advisable to reveal your identity. The promotional activities by PR and digital marketing teams will likely have no impact on a film's notability because the criteria for inclusion are very different. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jeraxmoira I understand the concerns regarding conflict of interest and the importance of adhering to Misplaced Pages's neutrality and notability guidelines. My intent in mentioning the promotional challenges was to provide context about the film's limited media coverage during its release period, not to justify its inclusion based on PR efforts. Thesazh (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@ARandomName123 @Jeraxmoira Shukra -Film - Telugu Misplaced Pages Thesazh (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect. If any editors have located any additional reviews, please bring them to this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect: as suggested is fine, seems to be a good alternative. Oaktree b (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Glokk40Spaz

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete -Charitably it is too soon. In his first AfD about a year ago, he got one "weak keep" vote because he is signed to Columbia Records, but that is not enough. He is listed at the company website: , but with no supporting info ("Read More" leads nowhere). I can find no information from the label about any promotion of his releases or if they even released anything by him yet, despite what this article says. Meanwhile, he has no coverage in reliable music media and his stuff remains self-released on the usual platforms. Good luck to him if that big label puts in some effort, but nothing has yet happened to generate material for an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I've found some coverage in reliable sources: . Still not sure if it's enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO though. मल्ल (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support out there for Deletion. It would also be nice to get another review of sources recently brought to this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Weak Keep - the HipHopDX and HNHH sources make this scrape past GNG. SK2242 (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: According to https://www.hiphopdx.com/contactus, Managers, Publicists & PR Professionals are encouraged to reach out to request coverage of the artist they represent, so I don't think we should count HipHopDX as an independent secondary source, and not an indication of notability. The rest doesn't seem to be quite enough to establish notability either. Falls a bit short of having significant independent coverage, I think. Mlkj (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Bangladesh Jubo Odhikar Parishad

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

Non notable youth organization. There are some references in the article, but they are all passing mentions and not in-depth coverage. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources about this organization that are independent of the subject, it fails WP:ORG, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Tina Albanese

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

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

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

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

Keep I think she meets WP:CREATIVE #3: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Apart from her other work, she co-wrote and co-executive produced 3 seasons of See Dad Run, and that has been the primary subject of multiple independent reviews. Some of the references from the See Dad Run article could be added here. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Patrick_Labyorteaux#Personal_life: she is mentioned there and she co-wrote See Dad Run with him. I am not opposed to the Keep RebeccaGreen is suggesting if she and other users really think her role in the series was essential. -Mushy Yank. 18:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect either to Patrick_Labyorteaux or perhaps to See Dad Run directly. I'd otherwise lean against keeping.. I agree she meets WP:CREATIVE #3, and she definitely deserves credit for her work. But I see those additional criteria more as something that strengthens a case (and a reason to expect that we might find significant coverage). But I'm having a hard time finding much beyond her IMDB. Even if someone is important for their work, we really can't write much in a WP:BLP without WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources Mlkj (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Bangladesh at major beauty pageants

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and ~~Thailand~~. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) Erroneous addition struck by Paul_012 (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment: For convenience, User:Bri's rationale from the previous nomination was as follows. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
...merely reiterates material found at Miss Bangladesh, Miss Earth Bangladesh , Miss Universe Bangladesh, and Miss World Bangladesh and, in fact, redundant tables for each of those appear at #International pageants
Because the contents are pretty much identical (side-by-side presentation of data on participants at the Big Four international beauty pageants, even with identical formatting and all) consensus is pretty much rock solid for deleting them as WP:IINFO and WP:SYNTH, and due to the consensus shown by the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Belize at major beauty pageants precedent and 100+ subsequent debates over similar "Country at major beauty pageants" articles, some links at Special:Permalink/1036690997, Special:Permalink/1037877047, and Special:Permalink/1038545583 especially 87 pageant country articles bundled under Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/France at major beauty pageants.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping for more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are right now ZERO arguments for this article, there is not even a deletion nomination. So, unless participants show up and weigh in, I see closing this as an uncontested Keep. Also, since this was previously at AFD, Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Weak delete. I could see how this is potentially adjacent to a notable topic, but as it stands, it's not clear what this article is supposed to be about. The article's current contents are WP:SYNTH of national beauty pageants in Bangladesh and Bangladesh's performance in international beauty pageants. Even if someone attempted to clean it up, it's unclear what would be left (again, the title does not make any clear indication). — Anonymous 05:25, 21 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 redirect‎ to List of provinces of Balhae. Liz 23:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

美州

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

Meets neither WP:DAB nor WP:NONENGLISHTITLE requirements. Bastun 17:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Japan. – The Grid (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Related AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/神戸駅. Cunard (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep as per the explanations given by @Adumbrativusand @KylieTastic on the Related AfD:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/神戸駅. - Adumbrativus makes an excellent point re this disambiguation being necessary specifically because it’s impossible to pick which English version to use - it is specifically disambiguating different spellings in “English” (romaji really) of the same kanji, and Kylietastic shows that many disambiguation pages of this type exist - enough for an entirely seperate category to be appropriate Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Absurdum4242: except that first 2 entries fail MOS:DABMENTION. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I lean delete. I appreciate the friendly citation to my comments on the other AFD; I think this case is more difficult. The connection between the search term and the targets is a bit thin. The disambiguation page currently says that 美州 is abbreviation for the two blue links, Mino Province and Mimasaka Province. According to the corresponding Japanese Misplaced Pages pages, ja:美濃国 and ja:美作国, their usual abbreviated names are 濃州 and 作州 respectively, while the alternative 美州 wouldn't distinguish them well. I don't know how accurate that information is, as I'm not familiar with these topics and not sure where to verify any of this. It's believable, at least. Overall a non-English term for a disfavored abbreviation starts to sound pretty obscure. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to List of provinces of Balhae, which is the only mention in Enwiki, and corresponds to the 3rd entry on the current disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. I'm giving this another week rather than closing this as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom and per comment by Adumbrativus. There’s no evidence that a reader of English WP would enter these characters looking for ~~any of these topics, especially~~ either of the Japanese provinces.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Support redirect to List of provinces of Balhae as alternative to deletion. Per WP:ENGLISH Redirects from native and other historically relevant names are encouraged. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 05:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to List of provinces of Balhae per Shhhnotsoloud. Adumbrativus's comment convinces me that the Japanese topics seem too implausible to be worth listing here, so the only relevant target is the one mentioned in the list article. Tag with Template:R with possibilities (zh:美州 cites three sources, and I think it would probably be presumed notable per WP:NPLACE). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to List of provinces of Balhae per others above. Toadspike 13:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to List of provinces of Balhae per WP:ENGLISH as cited by MYCETEAE. The article barely has any information, and I agree that readers of English WP are unlikely to enter those characters when searching for a topic. Redirecting will preserve the info, as little as it is, so it will be readily available in case someone does enter this search term.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:00, 21 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.

Dodirni mi kolena

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

Non-notable album. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep 14:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, all the covers have to indicate at least some level of long-term significance, at least for the eponymous song. Did you check those sources that appear in a Google Books search for Zana "Dodirni mi kolena"? --Joy (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Joy: Per WP:THREE which is best practice, can you post them up there so I can have a look at them. Thanks. scope_creep 10:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't actually care that much to argue either way, I'm just asking if that was part of your WP:BEFORE routine. --Joy (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Looking at the Google Books references (to address the above discussion), only one book mentions the subject twice; the others all only mention it once. I don't see the subject passing WP:SIGCOV. --Richard Yin (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. The album and several singles were, and still are, highly popular in the former Yugoslavia. Under the legacy section, it is noted that songs from the album have been covered by other artists and achieved significant success with listeners. — Sadko (words are wind) 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The fact they popular doesnt' give them an automatic right to Misplaced Pages article. Is there coverage per WP:COVERAGE per WP:THREE. The gbook passing mentions are insufficient. This is place were discuss notability. A simple keep !vote doesn't cover any longer and hasn't since 2006. If you have evidence post it up. scope_creep 11:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep. @Sadko is right ngl 14:16, 13 January 2015

NovaExplorer37 (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox 02:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We are looking for souces that provide SIGCOV, that's what Keep arguments need to show. Would a Redirect be an acceptable ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect per above (more useful than deleting, in my opinion). Strong oppose keeping as none of the keep votes have provided a legitimate rationale. — Anonymous 05:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep. The fact that the original poster is ignorant of the existence or significance of the album in a language he is ignorant of so he can't understand the listed sources about an album that went DIAMOND - is not an argument nor reason for deletion of a perfectly functional article. In fact, it is elitist, privileged and borderline racist. Hint: English is NOT the only language on the planet nor is English speaking world be-all end-all of culture and history. E.g. Original poster maintains a whole list of articles about people who, were they Nigerian instead of British, would be considered non-notable - the tenth Chief Medical Officer of the Home Office of the United Kingdom is not even a pop-quiz question, it is dust in an archive. But he was British, so it is notable. Were he from Yugoslavia the article would already be deleted. 109.175.105.19 (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It's unfortunately true that the English Misplaced Pages has a systemic bias in favor of North American or Western European subjects, but reliable sources are not optional.

That being said, you raise a good point about music certification, specifically criteria 2 and 3 in WP:NALBUM. Can you point to one reliable source, as defined in WP:Reliable sources, that states that the album appeared in a country's national music chart and/or it received a gold or higher certification? If so, I might switch to a keep or a merge to Zana (band) per WP:NALBUM: Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography.

I'll also leave a separate message on your talk page that's not related to the article. --Richard Yin (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

On another note, are you aware that Misplaced Pages has projects in hundreds of languages, some of which have different standards for notability than the English Misplaced Pages? Perhaps you could focus your efforts on improving them. — Anonymous 04:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Ximena Caminos

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

Following brief discussion on the talk page, in which an editor drafted a new version of the article, it makes more sense to delete this article and for active contributors to create something in draftspace in due course. In its current form, it resembles a CV or promotional piece more than an encyclopedia article. The subject is mentioned in reliable sources but, again, too promotional to establish notability. Northernhenge (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northernhenge (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Argentina. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete - There is nothing in the body of this stubbed-down version of the article that establishes general notability because there is nothing in the remaining text that refers to significant coverage. It has not been necessary to check the sources, because there is nothing that needs to be verified. There is also a draft. I have not yet reviewed the draft, but it seems better to delete this stub first and deal with the draft in the near future. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox 02:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there have been some recent additions to this article that need to be assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep. The coverage I can find of her in independent sources rises to level of multiple examples of significant coverage imo:

Guardian article which is mostly about her Reef Line project but she is quoted throughout

NYT Q&A with her which is quite detailed

Vogue piece is about her *and* her (ex?)husband, but it could be argued sigcov.

NYT mention also about Reef Line, she + her project has a two paragraph write-up

InsomniaOpossum (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC) InsomniaOpossum (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Dixie, Indiana

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

No sign that this was anything other than a short-lived pre-RFD post office, though searching is heavily impeded by people naming every old thing "Dixie"-something. Mangoe (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: The name Dixie didn't appear on USGS topo maps until 1962, long after the post office was gone: , and at the time was three buildings. That's not a community. There are more than three houses there now, but we need more than the name of a post office that closed 120 years ago to say this location "is" anything. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
This is the right time frame to be in the 1895 Lippincott's. Checking page 1041, however, and none of the Dixies there are in Indiana. Nothing in the Arcadia Publishing book on Corydon. Nothing in Bulleit's 1906 Illustrated atlas and history of Harrison County, Indiana. This isn't in any history books or gazetteers that I can find. It's one table row in a 1894 USPS directory listing, and that's it. There's no substantial documentation for this at all. Uncle G (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Egekent 2 railway station

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

Nothing in the Turkish article shows it to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: I stumbled upon the article out of luck, and fail to see how it is not notable. In general, a railway station on a mainline is often enough to warrant an article on itself — especially if the system is a major one, like Marmaray or in this case IZBAN, there is almost always a coverage on the Commons & newspapers. Not having any sources on the article doesn't make it non-notable automatically, there are few but growing interest about maintaining transportation articles these days. And the article had been expanded and cited now, thanks to the efforts of @Central Data Bank and @Erdem Ozturk 2021. Strong keep I'd say. ahmetlii _{(Please ping me on a reply!)} 15:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox 02:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Rise Motorsports

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

The article currently only has 3 sources - 2 are social media and the last is an entry list. After a search I could not find a 3rd party source. Definitely nothing to pass any sort of WP:SIGCOV. Grahaml35 (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Grahaml35 (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. The nom withdraw the nomination (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

List of Ukrainian literature translated into English

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

This strikes me as an non-encyclopedic cross-categorization per WP:CROSSCAT; perfectly appropriate for a category but failing WP:NLIST under WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE given the massive volume of potential entries in this list. In a WP:BEFORE I find discussion of the concept of Ukrainian literature in translation but not a discussion of these subjects as a group (and the selection of them, if not indiscriminate, appears to be an exercise in original research). Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Withdrawn; see below. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Literature, Lists, and Ukraine. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep - I looked online and there is a lot of SIGCOV about the topic, as noted above (happy to share if needed). I think that the better discussion may be a page split and/or a rename, rather than a deletion, to address to concerns about the page being too long. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Please share what you found that covers the grouping of items as a set per WP:NLIST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete Almost trivial and dubious criteria. Lorstaking (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom; potentially enormous list of little encyclopedic value, better handled with a WP:CAT. Carguychris (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep, the list can be made manageable, for example, by limiting entries to works that are notable enough for their own article. As a topic, it seems relevant that Ukrainian literature has historically been isolated and received limited English translation until it received more international attention following the Crimean invasion in 2014 and has been increasingly translated into English.

The best Ukrainian literary classics available in English translations, provides SIGCOV on the history of English translation of Ukrainian literature

UKRAINIAN LITERATURE IN ENGLISH is a comprehensive bibliography of Ukrainian literature in English published by the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press

Just glancing through Google, there are many articles giving recommendations for the best Ukrainian works that have been translated into English (e.g.6 great Ukrainian fiction books available in English, Kyiv Post, Love Ukraine as You Would the Sun: 10 Ukrainian Books Worth Reading in English, Literary Hub)

Photos of Japan (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. It would be great if other participants could respond to the request for sources. Thanks to those that did.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep and keep it manageable by limiting entries to works that are notable enough for their own article per above. BilletsMauves 12:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
It appears "keep" !voters are largely in favor of limiting the list to notable works, which does largely address the concerns about indiscriminateness. I'm going to WP:BOLDly change the article to reflect this and will thus withdraw my nomination with a keep !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

List of entertainment events at Gelora Bung Karno Sports Complex

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

This list fails WP:NLIST as there is no evidence (here or in WP:BEFORE search) that independent, reliable sources discuss the entertainment (or any other) events taking place at this sports complex as a group. Without evidence of such coverage, this list also fails WP:NOTDATABASE by being a database of non-notable individual events and fails WP:NOR because the work of compiling this list is itself an effort of original research. I WP:BOLDly redirected the page; however, the page creator reverted my action, so I bring it to AfD to seek a community consensus to redirect this page to Gelora Bung Karno Sports Complex. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Lists, and Indonesia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Tabani's School of Accountancy

AfDs for this article:

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

Only sourced with its official website. Non-notable accounting school, fails WP:NORG. Gheus (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was speedy keep.

Previous discussions: 2014-05 (closed as ✓ speedy keep)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete. No WP:SIRS sources in either English or Urdu as far as I could tell. No article on the Urdu Misplaced Pages either, although it seems like it may have had one in the past? I see no indication that this passes WP:NCORP. MCE89 (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Kids Zone

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

Fails WP:GNG: this is a press release and other articles just briefly mention it. ~~I think WP:TOOSOON applies.~~ Gheus (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment The network launched six years ago; was this rationale meant for another nomination? Nate • (chatter) 23:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
By "too soon", I mean, the topic could become notable in the future since it involves a TV station, and such channels often receive coverage in academic sources; however, there is currently no coverage. But I linked the wrong essay. Gheus (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment I don't think a proper search for sources was done. Bearian (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep. I always check other languages' articles for additional references. See the Urdu article, which I can't read, but ironically considering the subject itself, has sources translated from the English language. Bearian (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@Bearian you can read it in English on this link. I did my searches via my Google CSE of Pakistani sources and it lacks significant coverage. Most of the coverage like the launch of channel comes under WP:ORGTRIV. Are you willing to change the !vote? Gheus (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep. It has existed for seven years and seems to have a considerable following per my research. The article has issues and needs thorough editing, not deletion. Helleniac (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep per @Helleniac. Cyber the tiger 🐯 (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@CyberTheTiger. Please update your rationale. Helleniac's comment has been striked. Gheus (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep WP:TOOSOON seems late to the party here. I see no reason to delete. Snowycats (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Snowycats As stated above, I nominated it because it fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Can you share references which you think meet WP:CORPDEPTH criteria? Gheus (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment We just have two sources that are reliable but I doubt it is earned media. This is a "news desk" report and this is an article without a proper byline. WP:SIGCOV requires high-quality references with proper bylines and these two references also fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Gheus (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies. Gheus (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete, based upon new information, especially a good search and the translation of the article from Urdu provided by Gheus. There are only two reliable sources now, but both just briefly explain how the channel received a government license. That's not significant coverage for a corporation. The individual TV shows might be notable, but not the network. Bearian (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Matt Norman (basketball)

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

I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage from third-party sources to meet WP:GNG. The most I found was routine coverage like this game recap from the Grand Forks Herald or this short piece from Mid-Utah Radio. JTtheOG (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, North Dakota, and Utah. JTtheOG (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Dauntless: The Battle of Midway

AfDs for this article:

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

This article about a 2019 film was previously deleted at AfD, then later re-created with more sources, but the sources still don't establish notability per WP:NFILM. All of the works in the Bibliography section are about real-life aircraft and all of them were published 18 years or more before this film came out, meaning that they could not have any content about the film. Five of the 14 footnotes are to IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source (see Misplaced Pages:IMDB). Three of the other footnotes -- Naval History and Heritage Command, Hall of Valor Project, and a book by Barrett Tillman -- pertain to the real-life events this film was based on, not to the film itself. UCM.ONE is the website of the film's distributor in the German-speaking world. Rotten Tomatoes is a reliable source (see Misplaced Pages:ROTTENTOMATOES), but it's being used to cite the fact that the film has been reviewed by no critics they keep track of. The review from "That Moment In" appears to have been taken down from the website which is not a major review site anyway. The purported review from "Flickering Myth" is not a proper review; it's tagged as "News" by Flickering Myth, not as "Reviews". That leaves only two sources I haven't dismissed yet: a page from The Numbers with estimated DVD sales and a review on a blog about naval air history. I don't think this is enough to pass WP:NFILM. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 16:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The first AfD had identified a review by David Duprey at That MomentIn apparently? Were you able to check it? What about a merge into the article about the battle? (2-3 sentences in a bottom section; the film is listed in the See also section, the film having a rather notable cast)? Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 17:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the review by David Duprey is still mentioned in the article. I found it archived here. However, That Moment In has taken the review down -- see this search which finds nothing -- and is not a particularly significant website anyway to my knowledge. The more prominent films Midway (1976 film) and Midway (2019 film), both of which have much more notable casts and actually received theatrical releases, aren't discussed in the Battle of Midway article, just listed in the "See also" section, so I don't believe that this film should be discussed there either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Weak Keep, then, two acceptable reviews (Duprey and Matt Willis, who might be considered an expert in naval history) + mildly notable cast, released, verifiable. If an ATD is found, not opposed to Redirect. -Mushy Yank. 00:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I think I found a review or two - honestly, this is a good example of why it's so important to represent sources accurately and not stuff an article full of puffery. That can do more to damage the chances of an article surviving than anything. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I'll also note that misrepresenting the Flickering Myth source also puts the other sources into question, so another reason to be cautious. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I looked at the Duprey review - whomever wrote the reception section greatly misrepresented what was written. He didn't say it was bad, but the guy didn't really praise much about the movie either, as he found it generally forgettable. Looks like the other source I thought I had was just a trailer post. I'll keep digging, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Weak keep or redirect. This really, really pushes the boundaries of what is considered to pass NFILM. The reviews are OK, but not the strongest, and the only other sources is an article about the movie releasing (and a borderline WP:TRIVIAL source at that), a database page of home video sales, and a page that looks to be a general database type listing of the film. I do have to restate my earlier bit about the puffery - while the sourcing (that's actually about the film) is very weak, it would likely have not been as heavily scrutinized if it wasn't filled with some mild puffery. On a side note, I did find this Screen Rant source that lists it as one of the top 10 mockbusters per IMDb, but it doesn't give any info on how they compiled the list so I'm a bit reluctant to include it in the article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Weak keep as per the two reviews included in the reception section of the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. No good reason to delete. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Akane Okuma

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

Cannot find WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. After this article was draftified, it was returned to mainspace with one additional source, but it's a database source that is not SIGCOV. Entirely possible I can't find something here due to the language barrier so please ping me if there's something I missed. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Japan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Leaning delete, notability is not indicated per the 0 senior games and no included significant coverage. Draftification was a good avenue, but was challenged, so here we are. Geschichte (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete Google News yields no result for both the Japanese and Romaji name. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Changing vote to Weak Keep per sources belows, I've reviewed them and the Gekisaka (owned by Kodansha), Yahoo News is a good one, but I'm skeptical of the reliablity of myfuna.net. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 22:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep Okuma has played for the Japanese U20 national team several times, and has recently been added to the senior Japanese national team, leading to articles like this one, a full profile of her as a player who played all seven games in a recent tournament for the U20 Japan squad, keeping European teams scoreless in some of those matches, and who is expected to make her mark as part of the national squad both now and in the future as the team is currently going through a turnover of veteran players. Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
@Absurdum4242 Do you have a second example of WP:SIGCOV to get her over the threshold for WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT? If you do, happy to withdraw the nom, but with only the article you supplied, we aren't there yet. Expected to make her mark is not a criterion for notability, and the article can always be recreated in the future when/if she meets the threshold. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971 The “expected to make her mark” was part of me summarising the article for those who refuse to use google translate rather than my opinion, but sure, here’s another article by a different outlet, also a profile of her as a new member of the national squad. Whereas This article is more a profile of her domestic career. I’m thinking three articles should maybe be enough? But honestly, the idea that a professional football player, who has already played at junior international levels, and is then called up to the national squad wouldn’t have gotten enough coverage along the way, even if they are a woman, seems unlikely to me just in general, especially given the “coverage only needs to exist, not to be currently cited in the article as written”. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

~~Draftify~~ – The player in question has just been called up to the Japan national team for the first time, a good chance of reaching WP:SIGCOV in the coming months. Svartner (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep – Per new sources presented. Women's football is relevant enough in Japan to guarantee the article of an International footballer. Svartner (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Changing to Keep based on the additional sources supplied by Absurdum4242. Pinging GiantSnowman, Geschichte, Miminity to review. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep per sources above which (allegedly - AGF!) show notability. Giant Snowman 18:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC).

Greg Young (planner)

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

An orphan article with a lot of grand claims but only 2 citations. He is an adjunct professor and not full professor (which would grant him notability from WP:PROF), a google scholar search yielded little, there is a namesake in the USA. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
~~Comment~~. He seems to have several authored/edited academic books with respectable citations (eg Reshaping planning with culture (Routledge; 2008), The Routledge Research Companion to Planning and Culture (editor; Routledge; 2016)) and there are several other books listed in the article -- most likely source of notability will be as an author. ETA: The article highlighted in the article looks to be "The culturization of planning" (in Planning Theory, 2008) which has 52 citns in GS; I don't know the area well enough to know if that's significant or not. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

In addition to the 3 reviews below for Reshaping Planning with Culture there is JSTOR 26165901; the co-edited Ashgate/Routledge Research Companion to Planning and Culture (most citns are of the Ashgate edition) has doi:10.1177/0739456X16675470 & doi:10.1177/0265813515620979 (via Ebsco). I'm leaning keep as a diligent search in databases more planning focused than JSTOR/Ebsco is likely to find more reviews. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment. It is false that being a full professor would grant notability. Full professors are often notable but it is not an automatic consequence of their title. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. Looks like he passes WP:NAUTHOR — here are three reviews of his book "Reshaping Planning with Culture": . This was just a quick search based on one of his books, so I expect there are probably reviews for his other books out there. MCE89 (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep per WP:AUTHOR. I added the five reviews described above as references to the article, together with one more for Reshaping Planning With Culture and two for Paddington: A History. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

En midsommarnattsdröm (song)

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

Subject fails GNG and NSONG for not having significant coverage of independent, reliable source to pass the guidelines requirements. Cassiopeia talk 01:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 01:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep: If it reached the top of the Swedish "Singles Top 100" music chart, it's probably notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC) See https://web.archive.org/web/20120314114527/https://swedishcharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=H%25E5kan+Hellstr%25F6m&titel=En+midsommarnattsdr%25F6m&cat=s
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Seems like it charted at #1 for about ~1 week in Sweden, and remained in top #100 for a little while after that. I did find a short write-up of this song in particular in the Göteborgs-Posten, and it's also given a passing mention in a few tabloid articles about the musician in general. Does not seem to qualify for multiple, independent sources of sigcov. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Waterside hot water hay pellet furnace

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

Interesting idea which received some news coverage and a grant of 100k, but I don't see any evidence that it was picked up by any companies/organizations/entities, or even individual people. All the coverage I can find dates back to 2010-2012. No lasting impact. P.S. sorry about 'indiscernible' category, not sure if this falls under product or technology? InsomniaOpossum (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Article should be merged into Central_heating#Types_of_central_heating. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Arbijan

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

Likely hoax or misreading of sources. I searched in English Arabic and Turkish and found no sources at all. Creator has a record of writing dubious battle articles that get deleted. The second isbn number is dummy and the first one is real but inaccessibile. Mccapra (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Islam, and Uzbekistan. Mccapra (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I did not misread the sources and I share them on sites like X as much as I can. Since some of the books are printed in Turkish, their English pages may not match, but I can prove this with visuals. Kurya Khan (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Kurya Khan (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

As you can see, I have confirmed the sources I provided. It is not true that the information I gave is a scam. If you wish, you can read the links I sent you and see that I wrote the truth. Kurya Khan (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

712 Battle of Samarkand.. Kurya Khan (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran I have provided links to Turkish and English sources regarding the battle, and i can give you more if you wish. It is a completely inadequate conclusion that the article is a hoax and i request that it not be deleted Kurya Khan (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I assume you meant to tag Mccapra? The first two links are Twitter posts and the third is a page of a book which doesn't even mention Arbijan. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Twitter links because this is how I was able to post Turkish sources with visuals. The third one says that the Turks were defeated in Samarkand in 712. Kurya Khan (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:CITE, WP:VER and WP:NOTABLE. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment There is no need to post a twitter link to a photo of a page of a book if the book is published by a respectable publisher. There will generally be a google books version and sometimes other online-readable or downloadable versions. If you post links to those in this discussion we can all review them. There are plenty of people who can read Turkish in English Misplaced Pages. Mccapra (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete per Mccapra's comments. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yaron Gottlieb

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

Fails to meet WP:N. I have been unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. The article's sources are mostly the subject's own works along with an article that quotes the subject a single time. Should be deleted per WP:GNG. --Helleniac (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 13. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 14. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: I have fixed some malformed formatting in this nomination that hid a good chunk of it when transcluded. No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Israel, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment Just noting that the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and some of their other contributions make me a little concerned that this nomination might not have been done in good faith. No opinion at this point on the merits of the AfD. MCE89 (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Brief article on a professional at work. Fails the GNG. gidonb (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Weak keep - while it's true that he's not notable as an adjunct professor, he's the executive director of legal affairs for Interpol, and he's gotten some coverage for that. Bearian (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

List of mayors of places in Wyoming

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY that fails WP:NLIST. Lists such as these are hard to maintain since local offices frequently change. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

delete per WP:NOTDIR and as the nominator says, just common sense: it's likely to be inaccurate. Also, one does wonder where the sourcing is.... Mangoe (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. We've established a consensus against this kind of thing (see e.g. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of current mayors in Oklahoma, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of mayors in Alberta, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of council leaders in the United Kingdom), precisely because (as noted above) the information can become quickly outdated: it's likely to get updated quickly if a mayor of Casper or Cheyenne resigns or dies, because that would almost certainly be reported as news widely enough that somebody will see and update it promptly, but mayoral changes in small towns like Byron, La Barge or Ten Sleep are much more likely to get missed due to a lack of widespread coverage and attention. We've routinely seen that when such lists have been attempted in the past: the major cities whose mayoral changes get reported by major media as news get updated promptly when a mayoral change occurs, but the small towns whose mayoral changes only get reported in the local pennysaver without making it into major media do not, causing the list to quickly become inaccurate and out of date — so we just don't do this, because we can't guarantee the ability to stay immediately on top of every future change for every place in the list. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The Impact of COVID-19 on Asian American Women

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

This reads as a WP:RFORK of Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic with respect to the section on Asian-Americans in the United States, and is a implausible redirect. Barely different enough to not qualify for WP:A10. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Ethnic groups, COVID-19, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Sorry, you lost me at "authentic Chinese food". This reads like a bad high school essay. Sufficient coverage in other articles about the pandemic, as explained. Oaktree b (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. This is an essay, not an encyclopedic article. Also, women aren't mentioned in the body of the article at all. pburka (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete, it was written as part of a university course assignment, valiant effort on the student's behalf, but sadly doesn't meet wiki standards for a stand-alone article. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Pburka. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete per @Oaktree b, @Pburka and WP:NOTESSAY. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete, extremely poorly written. Sushidude21! (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete - More about racism than covid: "Despite a relative decline in some types of prejudice in recent decades, persistent biases still exist and have had a substantially detrimental effect on communities of color—particularly a few Asian American-related small business models" — Maile (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete this inappropriate student contribution, and encourage @Brianda (Wiki Ed): to make sure that the students on the course are being taught properly (icnluding being encouraged to put note on article talk page), so that they will have a positive experience of editing. PamD 09:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- The class ended on January 18, so based on past experience, I would be surprised if we ever see the students from this course edit Misplaced Pages again. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment, yes, this article misses the mark. If anyone is interested in this area, they should also take a look at the article of which it's a WP:RFORK, Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The main article, instead of being a good overview of the background, the interaction of xenophobia/racism and covid during the pandemic, governmental responses to the xenophobia, sociological issues that arose from it, etc. (with links to good secondary sources), is just a random rag-bag of headlines grabbed from newspapers as the pandemic unrolled (note the copious use of present tense, and sentences referring to "now", "has been charged" etc. instead of indicating when the event happened). It contains such treasures as: "On 30 January 2020, a postgraduate student walking alone while wearing a face mask on West Street in Sheffield city centre, towards the University of Sheffield, was verbally abused and nudged by three people." - no doubt a horrible experience for the person who got nudged, but I'm not quite sure what it's doing in an encyclopedia. Elemimele (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

"En Midsommarnattsdröm by Håkan Hellström - Music Charts". acharts.co. Retrieved 2025-01-22.
Lindqvist, Johan (2005-01-14). "Håkan Hellström | En midsommarnattsdröm". Göteborgs-Posten (in Swedish). Retrieved 2025-01-22.
Engman, Pascal (2016-06-03). "Håkan Hellströms fejd som ännu inte har läkt". www.expressen.se (in Swedish). Retrieved 2025-01-22.
"Nu anklagas Håkan Hellström för låtstöld - igen". www.aftonbladet.se (in Swedish). 2005-01-29. Retrieved 2025-01-22.