Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Purge

9 February 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Purge server cache

Matthew Huttle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:NCRIMINAL, his killing does not pass WP:NEVENT. Minor figure in a very large event and the killing does not make him more notable than the other ones. Not a lot here besides routine criminal proceedings. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like he's notable for two events. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Vaurie No, because he was never reported on for the first event. All sourcing is for one event (him getting shot) PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chess strategy and tactics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Readers do not need to be told that "chess strategy and tactics" consists of "chess strategy" and "chess tactics". All this article does is fool readers into thinking Wikipedia has an article covering both together. If we ever do have an article for both of them, as Bruce has suggested, then we can bring this back. Kaotao (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adelante (1902) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has existed as a stub, more-or-less unchanged, for more than a decade. The only information this article provides is that the newspaper existed for less than a year and that it had a rivalry with a socialist newspaper in the same city. The cited sources give only passing mentions of the paper, and I haven't been able to find anything else on this newspaper (although that may be complicated by the fairly generic name of the newspaper). It seems to me that this article fails to meet notability standards for periodicals. Short of merging the trivial details in this article into the one on La Voz del Pueblo, I don't see any good targets for merging/redirecting this, so I'm proposing it for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Mattson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BEFORE shows zero sources about this person; thus failing WP:GNG. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldogs Allstar Goodtime Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG per WP:BEFORE. Deprodded for no reason at all. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ebony (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG per WP:BEFORE. Deprodded last year without any reason at all. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bunnyman 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG per WP:BEFORE 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural close‎. As this is a redirect and always has been, please start a discussion at WP:RfD. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shrivalli Bhamidipaty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable player Vecihi91 (talk) 11:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Bassam Kawas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. Information was added that he competed in 1991 Summer Universiade but I don't believe that is enough to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I found several articles in Al Anwar covering Kawas including the fact that he was a cross country champion, not previously in the article. There's more at [1] under his Arabic name I'll have to comb through but I wanted to get this out first. The nominating statement says that SPORTCRIT isn't met, but it's actually fulfilled by the found coverage, which combined with WP:NATH (being a national champion) makes this a candidate to keep based on policy. --Habst (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which "found coverage" is significant? The source for his cross country championship says "Runner Bassam Kawas won the title", which is under no circumstances SIGCOV. It also doesn't say it's the "1992 Lebanese Cross Country Championships", it says "Lebanese Open Cross-Country Championship", and anyway winning a national title in athletics only suggests coverage if the subject has been ranked in the top 60 on the IAAF world leading list at the end of a given calendar year, which I don't see evidence for. JoelleJay (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, the newspaper coverage amounts to SIGCOV because it can be combined per WP:BASIC. Because "open" in the context of athletics just means "open to all age groups", and the newspaper article was discussing the 1992 race, it's accurate to say that Kawas won the 1992 Lebanese XC championships, I worded it that way to match that of the other articles in Category:National cross country running competitions. Kawas ranked 53rd in the 800m at the '92 Olympics administered by the IAAF, but the subject specific notability guidelines are irrelevant if GNG is met anyways.
    Because you know Arabic, can you post your interpretations of the other Al Anwar matches here or look for others, because the archive.org Arabic scans don't always get the flow of text correct? --Habst (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You know that SPORTSCRIT requires a citation to a source containing SIGCOV. I will not explain this to you for the 30th time.
    And no, the burden is on you to show the coverage you claim establishes notability. Single-sentence mentions and routine stats are worthless, so whatever you paste better be a lot more than that. JoelleJay (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a lot of respect for your contributions and hope you can extend me the same – Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that we work together to improve. I found the subject's native name and several newspaper articles about the subject in a language I don't speak, but the machine translations look promising to me. Do the Al Anwar matches here not constitute SIGCOV and thus fulfill SPORTCRIT? I'm happy to add the info to the article once we can get some good translations. --Habst (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    YOU need to paste exactly what you think is SIGCOV of this athlete. Search results do not demonstrate SIGCOV and do not satisfy SPORTCRIT, which requires a citation to a specific source. I am not going to waste my time writing up a source analysis for a bunch of search results that you are too whatever to even look at yourself, that is outrageously entitled. JoelleJay (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, Wikipedia P&Gs don't necessitate pasting text in a language I admit I don't understand, they actually say the opposite at WP:NEXISTS, by which we can presume notability by simply knowing that sources exist. I linked several textual matches from a reliable source in Al Anwar, so we know that these exist and it's valid for me to use NEXISTS for that reason.
    I've done my best with machine translation and I even added a fact to the article based on one of the cites from An-Nahar here: "Annahar , 1992, Lebanon, Arabic" (in Arabic). Retrieved 4 February 2025., but the OCR isn't perfect. I don't know what else I can do without the help of a native speaker. Can you help if you know the language? --Habst (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You have zero evidence that any of these sources are suitable and notability-indicating, and NEXIST does not "presume notability" at all anyway. And that source is the same utterly trivial six words of coverage from earlier, clearly not SIGCOV.
    I don't read Arabic, you have the same access to translation tools as I have. Do your own work. JoelleJay (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, both Al Anwar and An-Nahar are both reputable newspapers, there's no evidence at WP:RSP that their suitability has ever been contested, in fact An-Nahar has been cited twice as a reputable source Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 430#Tahawolat a reliable Arabic journal looks like this An-Nahar and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_405 An-Nahar, a reputable daily newspaper in Lebanon, known for its reliable reporting.
    I thought you could read Arabic because of the comments about "Lebanese Open Cross-Country Championship" above, which were about the specific wording. Invoking WP:NEXIST is warranted here, and I'm open to incorporating more data from those sources as soon as we have a good transcription. It's not just about translation tools here, because the archive.org OCR effectively makes deciphering large blocks of text from these newspapers very difficult unless you know how to read the source text. --Habst (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me get this straight: you are interpreting NEXIST as referring to the existence of any coverage, no matter how trivial, in RS, rather than the existence of notability-establishing ("suitable") coverage in RS? So, to you, someone having any RS coverage at all is enough to presume the subject is notable.....?
    I've explained to you before how to copy-paste archive.org snippets of Arabic text into Google Translate. Yes it takes some effort if you want to expand the snippet beyond what is provided; if you aren't willing to do this to prove a given hit is SIGCOV, then don't claim any of those hits are SIGCOV! JoelleJay (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, I don't think that's what NEXIST means and it's not how it's being invoked here. NEXIST is based on probability, because when you don't have the sources, the only thing you can do is say the likelihood of them existing. So how can we establish that notability-indicating ("suitable") sources exist with a high degree of certainty? Here's a checklist for this specific instance:
    There are several text hits for the name. Are they mentioned in the context of athletics, i.e. referring to the subject? Yes, as far as I can tell. Are they part of advertisements? No, not based on the translated snippets. Are they trivial mentions? It doesn't seem that way from the translated snippets either, i.e. part of paragraphs, and keep in mind after a name is mentioned once it may be mentioned after using only the surname which wouldn't show as a text match.
    Given that, yes it's valid to say that sources exist and I have linked the search result to them above. I actually already machine-translated all the matches but due to inaccurate OCR, the text is garbled and nonsensical when translated and copy/pasting doesn't fix the OCR issues. At some point, you have to rely on having a native speaker. --Habst (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NEXIST is there solely to make sure people are basing their assessment of notability on the sources they can find rather than only on the ones cited in the article. It is not supposed to be used to presume notability, and it definitely does not suggest that you can use unassessed search hits to assert that SIGCOV is likely.
    If you think a six-word sentence in a routine results announcement isn't trivial coverage then you should not be evaluating sportsperson notability. JoelleJay (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, yes, that's exactly how I'm using NEXIST in this discussion. I'm not sure how you can say that the 1992 An-Nahar snippet is only six words considering we have no access to the text on the rest of the page, and when I translate it based on the OCR the text comes out non-sensical. --Habst (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We can be sure that it is a trivial mention, because the context is clearly routine results announcements! The translations are coming out garbled because they're literally uncontextualized sports stats rather than prose. JoelleJay (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, not all are sports stats, as you've shown below, and even paragraphs of content have shown up with unreliable character recognition for me. We also need to look for mentions of the last name قواص on the pages, because often times a full name is only mentioned once and we only have the context immediately surrounding that. --Habst (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And for the record, I have translated all the search results and not a single one goes beyond a trivial passing mention, even when searching for just his surname. These were the only ones that had full sentences of prose:
    • Jump 1- Gaby Issa El Khoury (Al-Jammour) 0 meters. Runner: -1 Philippe Bejjani (Al-Jammour) 1.80. 00 meters: 1 Bassam Kawas (Al-Ansar) 10.41.01 minutes. He came in second. The Federation chose the runner Bassam Kawas to represent Lebanon in the Olympic Games, hoping that the Federation would also choose the runner Charbel Abi Tayeh...
    • The Mariamite Club Dik Al-Mahdi achieved a double victory in the Lebanese Open Cross-Country Championship for men and women; by taking first place in the race. Runner Bassam Kawas won the title of Lebanese champion for men and runner Solange Abi Ghosn won the title of Lebanese champion for women.
    • On participating in the Summer Olympic Games in Barcelona: The Minister of National Education, Dr. Zaki Mazboui, issued a decision based on the proposal of the Director General of Youth and Sports, Mr. Shawqi Attia, to form the following delegation: [List of athletes] Jumping: Christian Vervensis (ranked among the 4th in the world. Participated in the World Championship (1999). [...] Athletics: Runner Bassam Kawas (Lebanese champion in the 10084 and 1000 meters).
    JoelleJay (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, thanks for your work translating these. There were 11 newspaper hits, so what can you see in the others? Part of my difficulty in translating these is that I can only get the text immediately surrounding my search term, and even then it's often garbled for a non-Arabic reader.
    Is it possible that this sports administrator is him, shown here being interviewed for a Lebanese TV programme? --Habst (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The others are lists and stats, as should be apparent from the format the original text is in. I also searched his last name in every one of them. There is zero reason to expect anything more substantial than routine results coverage exists. And no I am not going to watch some facebook-hosted interview in Arabic because it doesn't matter whether it's him or not, it's unusable for GNG and would not suggest further coverage exists. JoelleJay (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, based on the characteristics (see above, name present in prose, not only part of lists, likely more than mentions), combined with the fact that several hits are probably missing due to poor digitization of the text, I don't agree that only routine results coverage exists of this person. The fact that an interview is hosted on Facebook isn't at all disqualifying because Facebook isn't the publisher of the interview -- the Lebanese TV programme LFC Sports is. Many recent article hits (in Arabic) seem to be related to this position, so it's worth looking into. --Habst (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We know they are not more than mentions. Every single hit occurs within stats or lists, even the prose ones. They do not refer to him again later in the page because again, these are routine results announcements, not articles. NSPORT requires you to cite a source that we know for a fact has SIGCOV, that is absolutely not achieved with trivial mentions and totally baseless assertions that we can presume any further coverage exists. JoelleJay (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, how can we know that they're not more than mentions without even having access to the entire page of digitized text, given the OCR issues and the fact that we both can't read the language?
    Subject-specific notability guidelines like NSPORT are irrelevant if GNG is met, which can be fulfilled by NEXISTS. I haven't made any baseless assertions, I've actually linked full TV interviews and newspaper articles from reputable sources that we know cover the subject – demonstrating that suitable sources do exist. --Habst (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We have access to the entire text. We know that his surname doesn't appear elsewhere on those pages outside of trivial mentions.
    You have not linked a single source of SIGCOV. He meets neither SPORTCRIT nor GNG. How many times does this need to be repeated? You are insisting that his name merely appearing in newspapers that you can't figure out how to read means that they must be discussing him in further detail on those pages, while somehow not ever mentioning his surname again, and despite the context obviously being things like "Mithal Sahmarani (Al-Ansar), Bassam Kawas (Al-Ansar), Bilal Hathof (Al-Ansar)" and literal bullet-point lists. TV interviews of him are not secondary coverage and can be dismissed outright.
    Source evaluation: 1 two passing mentions, his name in stats and his name in the delegates announcement Red XN, 2 trivial stats Red XN, 3 trivial stats Red XN, 4 trivial stats Red XN, 5 trivial mention Red XN, 6 trivial stats Red XN, 7 trivial
    mention Red XN, 8 trivial stats Red XN, 9 trivial mention in list 10 trivial stats Red XN, 11 trivial stats Red XN. JoelleJay (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, would you be in a position to now cast a !vote in this AfD? LibStar (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, You have not linked a single source of SIGCOV -- I don't agree with this (I've linked multiple) but more importantly this is a misunderstanding of the notability policy, which explicitly does not require links so long as it can be demonstrated that coverage exists otherwise.
    If we have access to the entire page of text, then please paste or link the entire transcript. The archive.org full-text links don't preserve the flow of text, and search results only digitize the snippet of text directly surrounding the matching term. Without this access and without knowing the language, a source analysis would be impossible to perform.
    The linked TV interview can also be considered secondary (non-primary) coverage, per Wikipedia policy and echoed by this comment from an administrator Special:Diff/1245933378: My personal (editor, not admin) POV is that if X media outlet chooses to interview someone, there's something there. [...] Is Ojala (or anyone in comparable position) being interviewed as a matter of post match interviews, or is it more substantive? Because the interview isn't only about a match, it has to be considered as part of coverage. --Habst (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. SPORTSCRIT requires sportsperson articles cite a source of IRS SIGCOV in addition to meeting GNG. Not a single such source has been identified. The refdump above has nothing but routine sports announcements; of the ones that are even in prose, I have provided the surrounding text demonstrating their triviality. His last name does not appear outside of brief passing mentions. A subject talking about himself in an interview is, obviously, not independent or secondary coverage of him (no, one editor's unsupportable opinion in some other AfD does not reflect "policy", much less overturn actual policy stating interviews are primary) and does not at all suggest additional coverage exists—this is on top of the fact that the interviewee, a youth soccer coach talking about coaching youth soccer, has not even been positively identified as the same person as this middle-distance runner (and the interview is hosted on a facebook page with no evidence of being from an independent RS news source!). JoelleJay (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could somebody other than Habst and JoelleJay please comment on this discussion, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Vahidnia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources lack any indication of WP:GNG (significant coverage). Xpander (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ju-Jitsu International Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe a discussion is well needed after the appearance of many standalone pages of Iranian Ju-Jitsu athletes. (See:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Shafiei- If the sport doesn't have established guidelines, the subject needs to meet WP:GNG) The Ju-Jitsu International Federation showcases Ju-Jitsu, and also hosts essentially Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu matches (See:2024 Ju jitsu World Championship Greece) commonly referred as only Jiu-Jitsu so it can be extremely confusing for casual fans and non experts, even for myself. I just made sense out of Ju-Jitsu VS Jiu-Jitsu. Jiu-Jitsu (Brazilian) has a much bigger following than Jujutsu, but both emphasize grappling. At the Ju-Jitsu International Federation, the level for their ground Ju-jitsu is not widely recognized at all.[2] The consensus in the Jiu-Jitsu world is that World IBJJF Jiu-Jitsu Championship & ADCC Submission Fighting World Championship are the biggest Jiu-Jitsu events in the world with ADCC being commonly referred to as "the Olympics of grappling". Competing or getting a medal in the Ju-Jitsu World Championships for example, can be easily confused as a "world championship" win in Jiu-Jitsu. However, the "Ju-Jitsu International Federation" is not even close to be regarded as a top Jiu-Jitsu. (Even highly competitive Jiu-Jitsu events such as NAGA have been deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North American Grappling Association for lack of independent coverage.) Therefore we have to treat this organization for their Ju-Jitsu. The organization has had notability issues since 2012/2013. My search did not find multiple cases of significant independent coverage that would show the organization meets WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG or the organization's notability. Therefore, I would like the opinion of others contributors. Lekkha Moun (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Ngā Taonga Tūturu ki Tokomaru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only reliable coverage I can find is this: [3]

Don't see any other reliable SIGCOV of this school, PROD was contested. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Te Manawa (Westgate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet GNG. The references are either non-independent or just passing coverage of the award but don't provide sigcov of the building itself. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Demolition Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly fails WP:NCORP. Previously PROD'd which was valid. Should not have been restored. Graywalls (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Rojek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMG, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Appears to be mostly a resume and self-promotional (WP:PROMO). No significant coverage in third party, independently published sources. Geoff | Who, me? 06:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glane23,
Nothing in there seems to be self-promotional and all are verifiable facts (awards, compositions, album releases etc.)
I do not understand why you are suggesting the article to be considered for deletion, when it does exactly what any other artist page does on Wikipedia (lists accomplishments on their resume).
best,
Itzek Itzek1952Note to closing admin: Itzek1952 (talkcontribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Floyd protests in Wyoming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May not be notable, only cited in a few local news articles over a few days in 2020, no coverage since. Maybe a merge to "List of George Floyd protests in the United States" would be a better home for this content. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Yuchitown. Eelipe (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, opinion is divided between Keep and Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GeoFS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sourcing is mixed at best. I don't think this would've made it through AfC. Even with a major cleanup and links to secondary sources, GeoFS is only really ever included in "top x flight simulator games" pieces, and even then with very varying levels of depth and reputable coverage. guninvalid (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pings: @Aviationwikiflight @Mybirthday647 @Xavier Tassin guninvalid (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of Motor Vehicle Area Code of Bihar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST, and no indication of notability whatsoever. CycloneYoris talk! 08:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Esgaroth Three (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure if this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. TheSwamphen (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Axie Hindman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTINHERITED, this person is only known in connection of her husband Darwin Hindman, a former mayor. A search finds close to no sources on Axie, failing WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, the only sources mentioning her in the context of her husband. Also want to note I was pretty interested by a mayor being openly gay and having a husband, but Axie is actually a woman, which the article got wrong. jolielover♥talk 07:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ebru Eroğlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS. She is known for being one of a few people who were expelled from the Turkish army after a recent controversy. Badbluebus (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It is true that Ebru Eroğlu was expelled from the military due to a recent controversy. However, the focus is on her because she is the most significant figure among those involved in the action mentioned in the article. This type of incident has occurred for the first time in the history of the Republic of Turkey, impacting both the military and the public. While it has been covered almost daily by the entire Turkish media, it has also gained attention in European and American press. Additionally, she is the first female soldier to graduate as the top student from the Turkish Military Academy. Therefore, I believe it is appropriate for the article to remain. Biologg (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Xen Coffee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable coffee bar failing WP:NOTABILITY, most content is written by the owner. This is basically just a content marketing / SEO page. UKWikiGuy (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 American aviation crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recency bias made article and does not meet the the Wikipedia Notability guideline RobertOwens01 (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 100% SYNTHed material. Probably just coincidences. Putting them all in one article implies correlation. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Te Koutu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mentions of school are either passing or trivial, with most coverage dedicated to the now disgraced former principal. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The history of the school and its impact on the community are covered in a chapter in the scholarly publication Collaborating to Meet Language Challenges in Indigenous Mathematics Classrooms published by Springer in 2012.
Reference: Meaney, T., Trinick, T., Fairhall, U. (2012). "The History of Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Te Koutu – The Politicisation of a Local Community". In: Collaborating to Meet Language Challenges in Indigenous Mathematics Classrooms. Mathematics Education Library, vol 52. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1994-1_3
Paora (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withdraw based on that source. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle Thanks! Paora (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Boy Scouts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly confusing. It's not a disambiguation page (there's already Boy Scout (disambiguation), with a 10-year old discussion about merging the two, Talk:Boy_Scouts#Merge_of_Boy_Scouts_(disambiguation)). It seems a set-index article, as it's just a list. Boy scouts redirects here but Boy scout doesn't. fgnievinski (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Farhad Azizii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability, it was once deleted here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farhad Azizi (athlete). now recreated again under a slightly different name to trick wikipedia. I'm going to repeat what I wrote before. most refs are fake and searching his name in English gives you almost nothing. Sports2021 (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moeed Pirzada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E. He was one of the journalists who were targeted by the Pakistani government in 2023 under some controversial charges. Most of the sources that discuss those arrests don't talk about Pirzada in any significant depth, which is why most of his career is sourced to primary sources in this article. Since this article has been repeatedly created by sock/meatpuppets, I would recommend salting it as well. Badbluebus (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Not just the Pakistani government, but also the Pakistani military establishment has targeted him. He remains a prominent journalist in Pakistan, with millions of people relying on his political analytical abilities to foresee what is likely to happen in the near future in Pakistan as well as around the globe. This is evident from his YouTube channel, which garners significant viewership from various countries, not just Pakistan. His page may require some, or even a lot of, improvements, but these improvements can only happen if the page is allowed to exist and remain open for public contributions. Deleting his page would be unfair. Aqsa Qambrani (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Aqsa Qambrani (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep. Not just the Pakistani government, but also the Pakistani military establishment has targeted him. He remains a prominent journalist in Pakistan, with millions of people relying on his political analytical abilities to foresee what is likely to happen in the near future in Pakistan as well as around the globe. This is evident from his YouTube channel, which garners significant viewership from various countries, not just Pakistan. His page may require some, or even a lot of, improvements, but these improvements can only happen if the page is allowed to exist and remain open for public contributions. Deleting his page would be unfair Aqsa Qambrani (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Duplicate !vote: Aqsa Qambrani (talkcontribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
thank you so much Isaqibrana (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Moeed Pirzada is a prominent politics investigative journalist from Pakistan and has been in the media industry as senior anchor & columnist for over 16 years. He already had wikipedia page for years on wikipedia but recently the page was deleted after years being on wikipedia, deleted specially after he became a victim of Pakistan Regime 2022 with several other Pakistani journalists. The previous wikipedia page deletion shows how current administration does not want him to be a public figure, I believe even the previous deletion of his page was against freedom of information. He is being targeted by current administration in Pakistan. After being banned from entering Pakistan and banned on mainstream media, he choose to spread his voice using social media and currently have over 3 million people follow him with over 30 million active views. He also conducted interview with former British Prime Minister. QuantumThread (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)QuantumThread (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete and salt. There are shenanigans going on with this page (see the creator of Draft:Moeed Pirzada removing the G4 deletion template and copy-paste-moving the draft page's content into this page simultaneously). But even without the shenanigans, this subject does not clear WP:GNG or WP:NBIO for a standalone page. Almost all of these sources are to Pirzada's own writings or to other non-independent sources. The couple of sources that are both independent and reliable are not WP:SIGCOV of Pirzada. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    millions of people are relying on his political analytical abilities to foresee what is likely to happen in the near future in Pakistan as well as around the globe Isaqibrana (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr. Pirzada qualifies to be on Wikipedia and definitely meets the criteria for WP:GNG or WP:NBIO.He is a credible and well-informed journalist in Pakistan. While I acknowledge that there is room for improvement, this can be achieved by allowing open contributions and ensuring that citations come from independent sources rather than his own blog. for your reference please have a look https://www.economy.pk/top-10-news-anchor-in-pakistan/. Pirzada is one of the top journalists of Pakistan. Aqsa Qambrani (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Pirzada qualifies to be on Wikipedia and definitely meets the criteria for WP:GNG or WP:NBIO.He is a credible and well-informed journalist in Pakistan. While I acknowledge that there is room for improvement, this can be achieved by allowing open contributions and ensuring that citations come from independent sources rather than his own blog. for your reference please have a look https://www.economy.pk/top-10-news-anchor-in-pakistan/. Pirzada is one of the top journalists of Pakistan 101.53.234.144 (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC) 101.53.234.144 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Mr Moeed Pirzada is very well known and respected world renowned Political Analyst, Journalist,TV anchor / Host, and an author. His name should not be deleted from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neunad (talkcontribs) 05:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC) Neunad (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have very divided opinion here right now and much of it is just opinion. Can we get a source review?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am entirely ignoring the sock/meat campaign to keep this article, but there remain two valid keeps that haven't been rebutted directly - tempting as it is to delete an article purely because it is the subject of an off-wiki campaign, that isn't based in policy either.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lindy Fralin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NCORP fail. Graywalls (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Society for the Defence of Palestinian Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Organization is not notable. Page is also poorly translated and extremely antisemitic, peddling the Zionist Occupied Government conspiracy theory as fact, among other things Pyramids09 (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, this organization is likely notable, I've been able to find significant coverage, a quick search can lead to [7] and [8] in addition, it appears the organization is rather significant in Iranian politics, since both Hossein Amirabdollahian and Zahra Mostafavi Khomeini seem to have had affiliation with the organization. There's probably sources that aren't in English that could be used as well. The main issue of the article is how it is written, this article certainly does have brazen WP:NPOV issues, but that is something that can and should be fixed. I think maybe we could Draftify the article until these issues are fixed if necessary. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changing stance to Strong Keep. -Samoht27 (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The propaganda of the Iranian medieval regime is well-known and does not need promotion on Wikipedia. If spreading chaos in the Middle East is considered defending the Palestinian cause, then indeed, the Palestinians might need it! Valorthal77 (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly a notable organization, from a quick search seems to be a fairly major organization in Iran, organizing mass protests, international conferences, running a publishing house, etc.. The WP:IDONTLIKEIT argumentation in this AfD debate don't hold up. --Soman (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Right now, participants' opinion is divided. If the only problem is NPOV, that can be corrected through editing. The question is whether or not this subject is notable as demonstrated by sources so both those editors seeking to Keep and those advocating Deletion should be focusing on that aspect and not on whether the current content is appropriate for the project.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an undoubtedly notable Iranian gov-backed org. However, I would reiterate that certain phrasings in the article might not meet WP:NPOV and should be fixed. That doesn't necessitate deletion though. Eelipe (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC) non-XC editor vote struck -- asilvering (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per above. Has no place on Wikipedia. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The entire premise of the AfD is extremely problematic. "The fact a subject is not neutrally presented is not a valid reason for deletion. The solution for lack of neutrality is to fix the article, not delete it." - WP:ITSNOTNEUTRAL. Eelipe (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article required significant improvements, including proper sourcing, neutral tone, and the removal of unsupported claims, all of which I have addressed. The subject is notable, and the article now meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and reliability. Taha Danesh (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the article is partially biased. AgusTates (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid reason for deletion. See WP:ITSNOTNEUTRAL. Eelipe (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "keep" folks don't seem to be having the same argument the "delete" folks are having. If you're going to !vote keep, please show what makes the org notable - what sources? Furthermore, if an article is extremely biased, we can delete it, as a WP:TNT argument. Let's get this back on track and look at the sources, please. Reminder that this falls under WP:PIA and only extended-confirmed editors may take part in this discussion. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Natività della Vergine, Thiene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources to establish notability per: WP:N. See talk page for more info. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 10:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • leaning delete Given a lack of sources, I'm not going to presume an old building is notable simply because it's old; if nobody cares enough to write about it, then it isn't notable. It does actually matter if the Italians don't care about their own buildings, but I would presume that what with the interest in Renaissance art, there ought to be English language sources if there were anything notable about it. And I'm having trouble finding sources beyond the municipal site, possibly because non-Italian sources don't use an Italian name. I wouldn't necessarily oppose a merge, but at the moment I'd really expect to see some sourcing that makes an explicit claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have no reliable sources for this whatsoever, including for the claim that it was built in 1470. (fwiw, it sure doesn't look 15th century to me, but I'm not an Italianist.) -- asilvering (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, as soon as I say that, I find the magic word that brings up a source: [9]. This gives us a date of 1476 and a hint of some recent research, so hold that thought. -- asilvering (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm still on "delete", unless someone can pony up some sources. I found a bachelor's thesis ([10]) that says the architect was Giovanni da Porto, if that helps anyone. -- asilvering (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss the info from asilvering w/r/t architect if that helps on IDing sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I found sources and have added them. I don't entirely understand the difficulty - unless I've lost my grasp on reality and am looking at some completely different church in Thiene. Ingratis (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of boats in The Adventures of Tintin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So, there's some interesting stuff here in the form of well written and referenced text on "The maritime world in The Adventures of Tintin", but this is wrapped in fancrufty and poorly referenced list that fails WP:NLIST (and while the list appears to have plenty of footnotes, many are just unreferenced notes or commentary). As a list, I think his has no reason to exist, but the content could probably be merged somewhere, or maybe split (or perhaps we could just delete the list part of this article and rename it?). It's a weird case, I've very rarely seen some good content bundled with bad one in such a way... If this is somehow kept, obviously, this is not a list of boats, but ships (or ships and boats?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in the hopes of finding a more definitive consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 02:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Szego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a case of WP:BLP1E, the subject is only notable for their sacking from The Age. The rest of the sourcing that I've found, both in the article and through searches, is either not independent or not in-depth. I've considered the possibility that they might pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC and I don't see that either is the case. TarnishedPathtalk 11:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eelipe (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per WP:BLP1E the 'subjects notable for one event' policy must meet each of three criteria listed for the subject to be unsuitable for a page. They are: reliable sources only cover one event; the individual is otherwise low profile; and the individual's role in the event was not significant. I suggest Szego's career as an author and journalist elevates her above “low-profile individual”; and her role in the event clearly was not “not significant”. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A reading of WP:LOWPROFILE would suggest that they are indeed a low profile individual. Being a author or a journalist alone does not make someone not low-profile. In fact if they did have a high profile as consequence of those activities they would almost certainly pass WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:NAUTHOR (the same policy), which they appear not to. TarnishedPathtalk 23:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't agree with the contention that she is WP:BLP1E nor do I agree with the issue around the other sources. At the very least there is:

https://www.wilddingopress.com.au/julie-szego

https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2015/04/24/32926/nsw-premiers-literary-awards-2015-shortlists-announced/

https://www.theage.com.au/by/julie-szego-hvf9s

https://thejewishindependent.com.au/podcast-ashley-talks-to-journalist-julie-szego

https://www.theguardian.com/profile/julie-szego

MaskedSinger (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Wild Dingo Press, sells her book (see https://www.wilddingopress.com.au/shop/p/9780987381149). It's unsurprising that a book seller would have a profile page for an author that they sell the books of. It's not independent. It would also be a stretch to call two paragraphs significant coverage.
  2. bookpublishing.com.au only mentions her in passing. It does not have significant coverage of her. Notably there is no claim that she won that award so I don't see a pass with WP:NAUTHOR.
  3. The Age link you provide is her employee profile page, detailing articles that she wrote as a journalist for The Age. Firstly that's not independent coverage of her as an individual and secondly that doesn't go towards showing a pass of WP:NJOURNALIST. The Age were her employer, so it's unsurprising that they'd have a profile page on her.
  4. thejewishindependent is a podcast in which she is interviewed. This is not independent from Szego and more importantly counts as a primary source. This does not contribute towards establishing Szego's notability. Those issues aside it appears to be dominated by her sacking from The Age, going towards my argument of BLP1E.
  5. The Guardian link is of the same nature as The Age link. Again not independent as they are/were her employer and again it's it's unsurprising that they'd have a profile page on her which details the stories that she's written for them.
None of the sources you have provided above contribute to Szego's passing our general notability guidelines. In order to establish notability we would need multiple reliable secondary sources which are independent from Szego and which cover her in-depth. If WP:BLP1E wasn't a thing then she should pass on the coverage of her sacking alone, however WP:BLP1E is a thing and therefore she doesn't meet our general notability guidelines. TarnishedPathtalk 12:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, above discussion and online research that rendered 2 books (no reviews), a sacking, and a couple articles about George Szego. Nothing significant for a career spanning decades. Maineartists (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen editors cite multiple reviews in the past as sufficient reason for a keep (not that I'm accusing you of doing that here as you've obviously stated there are no reviews). I'm not sure that multiple book reviews, by itself, is a WP:NAUTHOR pass. I presume the editors are basing their keep vote based on criterion 3 which states 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, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series), but to me it would appear that when they are doing so that they are disregarding the first sentence of that criterion. TarnishedPathtalk 00:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Keep" clearly has the numbers, but none of these keep !votes have appropriate evidence backing them up. If there are independent sources about her and her views, let's see them, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Macon City Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think a city of <200k needs a separate page for its city council, especially given that the only member listed who has a Wikipedia page is Erick Erickson, who is obviously notable for other things. I don't see the argument for this passing GNG. And that's not even mentioning the current state of the page, which cites no sources and hasn't been updated in over a decade--it still lists Erickson as a member of the city council even though he left office in 2011. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Toys 3D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rationale: Non-notable per WP:GNG for a shareware re-release of a game that lacks an article. I think it seems to be shareware that does pop up in odd sources and cover discs, but lacks substantial coverage and review content to justify an article about it.

Source analysis: Relies mostly on primary sources [11], user-generated blogs [12] or game databases [13][14][15]. A PC Gamer article ([16]) seems promising, but the content reveals the writer has not played the game, relying on the site's description to describe it, and is expressing bemusement at the archaic method of distribution of its rerelease. Best coverage seems to be in a Czech magazine website of unknown reliability [17].

Other searches: Trivial mention on Games Industry as part of a publisher background [18]. Internet Archive search found one catalogue listing describing the game ([19]) and one Russian review ([20]) although the latter doesn't really describe or express much of an opinion of the game other than calling it a funny parody of Wolfenstein. VRXCES (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a merge/redirect into Wolfenstein_3D#Legacy. Btw, Tibo Software's website is still online. IgelRM (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps redirect to WinG, the library it uses. 2604:3D09:8C77:A500:595:B86:B208:2639 (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 01:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrocles (half-brother of Socrates) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. He has precisely one mention in the complete works of Plato. All the information is extrapolated from what we know of Socrates. Remsense ‥  00:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G, I'd be happy to reconsider, but I have no access to Nails' book myself (Google Books preview does not show those pages, nor the Works cited and consulted (which might provide other sources too)). Other sources I have found have at most a sentence or two about Patrocles, though admittedly more than is in this article. Xenophon: Ethical Principles and Historical Enquiry p286-287 says "Socrates' half-brother Patrocles was King Archon of the board of ten oligarchs who replaced the Thirty after their downfall"; Socrates in Love p 170 says Patrocles "may have had political ambitions; he is named as holding an official position in the Athenian treasury in the late fifth century". The Bloomsbury Companion to Socrates names Patrocles as one of seven who fled into exile as a result of the scandals and failed oligarchic coup of 415. That does sound like he was notable. I do not feel competent to add that info to the article, though! RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above, unless additional detail sufficient to prove notability is forthcoming: the best way to prove that would be to add some substantial, reliably cited mentions. If you do this, feel free to ping me to reconsider my !vote. Brief and passing mentions (even in good sources, as those discussed above seem to be) are not in themselves sufficient to do this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added those sources to the article. I hope that someone with access to Nails 2002 will expand the article further. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If no one else has critiques, I'm happy to keep the article given these improvements, thank you. Remsense ‥  01:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 01:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavishya Malika Puran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nom on behalf of @Kharavela Deva: whose nomination was: "The article's neutrality is disputed. Less coverage, non-reliable sources,no verifibility and also AI-generated content. It may broke WP:V,WP:N,WP:D" I am neutral Star Mississippi 00:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and India. Star Mississippi 00:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article doesn't seems to be totally AI generated, see [21]. Also, The previous AfD reason which was written by them was 100% AI generated, [22] it was also noted by Jynixafy [23] Koshuri (グ) 08:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it hard to assess notability of recent Indian topics, per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. As far as this book is concerned, I would think it possible that the original text by Achyutananda Dasa could be notable, or at least worth including information about it in the article about him (though I note that article says that he "wrote numerous books, many of which could be loosely translated as the Book of Prophecies"). Trying to assess the refs in this article: (1) is a video, so inaccessible to anyone who does not know Hindi; (2) is unreliable (at the end is "Disclaimer. The above information is based on various sources. Webdunia does not officially confirm it." It does not mention the 2023 book, just the text by Achyutananda Dasa. (3) does not mention the 2023 book either. (4) does say it's a review of Bhavishya Malika Puran translated into Hindi language by Pandit Shri Kashinath Mishra in 2023, but just repeats the same summary of the predictions as other refs do. (5) does not mention the 2023 book either. (10) in English is by someone who says "I am enthusiastic blogger & SEO expert." Probably not reliable, but does end the review by saying "Bhavishya Malika’s Authenticity: Some people are not sure if the Bhavishya Malika is genuine. We don’t really know where it came from or who wrote it, and some experts think it might be a more recent creation. Different Interpretations: The things written in the Bhavishya Malika can be understood in different ways. So, people might read the same text and come up with different predictions. Accuracy of Predictions: There’s no scientific proof that the predictions in the Bhavishya Malika are correct. It’s impossible to predict the future with complete certainty." This review also has a summary of positive and negative predictions in the book. If this article is kept, it should include information about the book's reception and critiques of it, not just repeat its predictions. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]