Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Purge

7 February 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

< February 06 February 08 >

Purge server cache

Yilmaz Bektaş

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

Dartmouth ALGOL 30

[edit]
Dartmouth ALGOL 30 (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. I could not find sources to establish notability. Since the person who dePRODed this did not make sourcing improvements and wrongly claimed that existing sources were sufficient, I’ll spell it out here. All of the sources are either primary (from Dartmouth College) or do not discuss Dartmouth ALGOL 30 specifically. The sources that are not from Dartmouth discuss various aspects of the broader topic of ALGOL, but they do not even mention this specific implementation. If you are voting Keep, please provide multiple sources that establish notability with quotations from source material that demonstrates significant coverage, per WP:SIGCOV. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Zahir (Konar Education Minister)

[edit]
Abdul Zahir (Konar Education Minister) (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)

Nominated for PROD, but PROD reverted with comment "As a cabinet-level official of a province, he is automatically notable, even without multiple in-depth references". The one reference is a passing mention. Article has been substandard since 2009. Blackballnz (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Channel Islands Universities Consortium

[edit]
Channel Islands Universities Consortium (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)

Per WP:Verifiability, all content on Wikpedia needs to verifiable. The only source that this article uses is no longer accessible. I cannot find any source about this Consortium's existence that doesn't just copy the Wikipedia article. Aŭstriano (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Monhiroe, you're going to have to elaborate on any relationship between the article that is nominated and your suggested Redirect target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Brad Matetsky

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ira Brad Matetsky (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 know this subject has survived a previous AfD, but the last one was six years ago and I think the project has leaned a bit more deletionist over time in regards to BLPs. This is something I've run into a few times myself in a Wikipedia-related context (I nominated myself for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Clover and I have written an article about a different Wikipedian since then that I actually think meets our current notability requirements). I think Matetsky's biography is a lot like mine... in that we're not really notable. I took a look at the cited references and the closest any of them gets to WP:GNG is the Princeton one here. My short-lived biography also only had one SIGCOV reference at the time. Everything else is a passing mention. I did my own before and did not find any other sources with more significant coverage (they were just more passing mentions). Deletion might not be the only answer here, a partial merge to the article about ArbCom might make sense, with the subject's name as a redirect. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Well, if the nom is about making comparisons to other articles (which I don't "think" we normally do) I've seen far fewer references in other articles that have been kept... - jc37 10:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc37: Look at the quality of the references. Most literally just list his name and are directory-like entries on websites. I've definitely seen people compare articles/AfDs in an AfD before to show precedent and differences in regards to level of secondary coverage. I'm going to try and keep my commenting at a minimum here but I hope that people try to distance themselves from the Wikipedia aspect and just see this as a normal biography. Is there enough coverage for a standalone biography? I don't think so. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but I disagree with your "hand wave" assessment of the page's sources.
    That said, "standalone" biography? Are you intimating that you want to see this listified somewhere? - jc37 16:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I ask you to give me three sources that demonstrate GNG coverage. As for standalone biography, I did mention the possibility of a partial merge (and then redirect) to ArbCom. The passing mentions of this subject are usually in that context. Kind of like how my name is a redirect. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarification. And I see that you adjusted that redirect [1].
    I think there's more to this article than merely his Wikipedia work, notable as it may be.
    Anyway, I really am trying to AGF here, but from what others have noted below, and from the seeming tone of your comments, this is starting to feel like "sour grapes" here.
    I think I'll wait to see what other commenters have to say. - jc37 16:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't referencing that redirect, but the discussion about a standalone article. I'll maintain that this AfD is WP:NOTPOINTY (I'd say everything about that section applies here), but I'm open to other people's perspectives. I started this AfD because I had genuine concerns about notability. I'll note that the previous AfD closed as "no consensus" so it's not like I'm the first person to have this opinion. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do realize that the timing was probably a dumb decision on my part but it really wasn't intended in any malicious kind of way. I was working on List of Wikipedia people lately. I've been considering the notability of other articles and whether other Wikipedians are notable in their own right. I try really hard not to be a hypocrite and apply consistent standards across the board. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting for anyone new to the discussion that I opened this before one of the articles I mention above was nominated for deletion. But I stand by what I said, in that this article really doesn't meet GNG. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Feels a tad bit pointy based on her creation of Tamzin being tagged for notability. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not meant to be pointy, someone mentioned the AfD on the talk page for that article and I think they had a point about notability. I genuinely believe this article isn't notable. The depth of coverage here is even less than that article, which was deleted, so I think that argument holds even more weight. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC), edited 21:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I 100% believe you're acting in good faith here. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On the whole I find the way redditors are covered compared to Wikipedians disappointing (I think they get more/better press). So I wish someone like Matetsky was notable for his immense contributions to Wikipedia. However, the coverage he has received does not pass notability. None of the sources really offers any indepth biographical coverage of Matetsky. Instead we get passing coverage of him talking about ArbCom, which any number of Wikipedians including myself have, some press coverage of some cases he's been a part of as a lawyer (all lacking WP:SIGCOV of Matetsky as a topic) and various "things on the internet he's done". If this were some 19th Century person I could maybe understand why we would stretch our policies and guidelines to include. But this is a BLP where we shouldn't be stretching things and I do not think he meets our standards for notability and so the right thing would be to delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You say "things done on the internet" like it's a bad thing - welcome to the 21st century : )
    Anyway, I think you left out book and magazine editor as well... - jc37 17:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No the "journal" is "things done on the internet". This is not some major journal of note or notability and isn't widely indexed. And truthfully that's how I considered the Baker Street publication but if you want to call it a book that's fine. It's a self published one that also id not notable nor convey notability under WP:NBOOK (the SNG I personally work with the most) Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mysterious Press is self-publishing? - jc37 21:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure where you're getting Mysterious Press from, but both the Baker Street Almanac and the Greenbag Almanac are published by Greenbag.org, which may not necessarily be self-published, but is a minuscule press, and its publications are unlikely to come close to WP:NBOOK. Contributing to an almanac (or being on its editorial or advisory board) isn't usually considered notable unless the almanac itself is considered notable. Risker (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks jc37 and Risker. The danger of trying to get a comment out quickly rather than giving it the time it deserved. I should have written "It's published by a micro poss that is also not one that conveys notability under WP:NBOOK..." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, let me clarify: I "found" Mysterious Press by looking at the page's references. Here's the link to the company's page: [2]. Here's a link describing them by their current owner: [3] - Mysterious Press was founded in 1975, and was sold to Warner Books in 1989. And here the "about" page for the current parent company: [4]]. I hope this helps. Happy reading : ) - jc37 15:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I can't open any of the links to Mysterious Press, my security system says it's a corrupted website; and its current owner, Penzler Press, doesn't include the book in its catalogue (nor NYB as one of its authors, but as an editor he probably wouldn't be). Is editing a non-notable compilation a criterion for notability? Risker (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Barnes and Noble showing it for sale: [5]. (tried to add Amazon link, but it wouldn't save) - jc37 21:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Very nice. Is the book notable? Are there multiple reviews of it, by reputable sources? Risker (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article, keep Newyorkbrad. There are almost no circumstances in which I would consider a Wikipedia editor to be notable, unless they already met notability standards in whatever they do outside of Wikipedia; editing Wikipedia, receiving a Wikipedia/Wikimedia award, being on an Arbcom, or even being quoted in a journalistic article about Wikipedia/Wikimedia does not and should not cross the notability threshold. Risker (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to expand here, because I do not see how we would consider Ira Brad Matetsky a notable author/editor; neither the works he has published/edited/written nor the journals/almanacs/books he has worked on meet our notability thresholds. I have absolutely no doubt that he is an excellent and highly professional lawyer; nonetheless, his work in this field would not meet our notability thresholds. And I think that it is actually a little bit insulting to the hundreds of thousands of Wikipedians, including many who have been more productive, and have produced more work that has been read by more people than all of the Arbcom pages put together, to suggest that Newyorkbrad is a lynchpin of the project. I say this as someone who has worked closely with NYB, knows him personally as Ira Brad and has enjoyed the pleasure of his company on several occasions, and holds him in the highest personal regard. He is a really good person, and he's done good work here. But none of this makes him notable, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion if he wasn't a popular and well-respected colleague of ours; that article would have been delete years ago. We really do need to stop this navel-gazing. Risker (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to some kind of list or meta-article about Wikipedians/Arbcom. Andre🚐 00:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per jc37. Serial (speculates here) 15:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Changed from: "Keep per WP:CREATIVE because, due to his extensive ArbCom tenure covering the relatively early years of Wikipedia and extending into more mature years, which has received a fair amount of coverage, and he was the longest-serving member, and he participated in at least one notable case ("notable" meaning: a case about which there is an article—Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia), and having played a significant role in a notable event on Wikipedia—the discovery of the Jar'Edo Wens hoax (he deleted the hoax), he has played a sufficiently significant role in co-creating the significant and well-known collective work which is Wikipedia (and Wikipedia has been the primary subject of multiple etcetera etcetera) for that role to be considered major and for this article to have some encyclopedic worth. To add: It's possible to write the article, and the article speaks for itself."—Alalch E. 22:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • After thinking a bit more about it, I'm switching to delete, as I no longer believe that it's possible to write a reasonable article. While there are corporate biographies, we can't rely on them to the degree needed to flesh out the legal career portion of the article, and mentioning just one case is unsatisfactory.—Alalch E. 09:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Carrite (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please assume good faith... starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was VERY polite. For you, this: this is a bad faith nomination in the wake of the Tamzin deletion, in my estimation. The end. Carrite (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        @Carrite, this AfD started 17 hours before Tamzin's AfD started. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt to everyone here. I'll remind folks that the initiator of this AfD had a BLP written about her which she herself put up for AfD as she doesn't think she's notable enough for an article, so notability of individual Wikipedians is definitely something to which she has given some serious thought. People can disagree with her assessment, and that's entirely fair. At the same time, Carrite, at the previous AfD for this article, you voted to delete. Could you help us to understand in what way the article has been improved sufficient for you to decide it should be kept this time? I'm not trying to be pointy here, but I think you're only person who's participated in both AfDs, so understanding your change in position may be important for other participants. Risker (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see how this article meets notability requirements. As per Risker, Delete the article, keep Newyorkbrad. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As the article subject, I am neutral, but have posted some thoughts here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to summarize NYB's salient points here because they feel worth being considered when weighting consensus:
    • He is, as he writes above, neutral about whether he should have an article
    • He notes that he has an article because of his ArbCom work and notes the ways that the sources inadequately source the fact that he is the longest serving Arb and how it now only says this as of 2018 because that's what the WSJ said.
    • The article gives little coverage to his work as a litigator and suggests his career can be summarized by having lost one case over a long career
    • Notes issues with the 2016 "as of" description of involvement in a literary society
    • Fails to include his newest Sherlock book (even while claiming it would bore many people)
    • Concludes with knowledge that his article isn't likely to be vandalized but other similarly notable, or non-notable, BLP may not be so lucky.
    I think I'm fairly summarizing what he wrote there and for me the top line statement that he is claiming to be neutral as an article subject gives rise to a lot of actual concerns as an article subject about the article, which maybe aren't collectively best addressed at an AfD, but do (I feel) deserve weight and consideration when assessing the consensus here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG: the sources either contain no significant coverage of the subject or are not independent of him. I join with the others above in saying that deletion would not be a reflection of Newyorkbrad as a member of our online community. arcticocean ■ 19:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per jc37 and Alalch E. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 19:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I like Newyorkbrad, and think he has been an outstanding arb (if not the best) for his work ethic, logic, cogent writing, and perhaps most importantly, empathy. If having a BLP were a reward for being an outstanding Wikipedian, he would absolutely deserve it. But it’s kind of the opposite, isn’t it? Please, please, please read the thoughts he lays out at User:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog#Thoughts from an AfD subject to understand the problems with piecing together a biographical article about someone about whom no proper biography has been written in reliable sources. You get woefully incomplete and outdated scraps of information that do not cohere into a proper, comprehensive narrative about the man’s life and career. He deserves better than that. If and when there are reliable sources that are sufficient to form a better, more complete picture than is available now, then it would make sense to consider a BLP. But — going solely by the sources — we’re not there yet. 28bytes (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the excellent reasons NYB provided in his "blog". Marginally notable NOTEable people with very little actual public info available should not have articles. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For borderline BLPs, consider what the subject prefers. In this case he seems to favor deletion. Jehochman Talk 04:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Does he favour it? He has said I am staying neutral on whether the article should be kept or deleted which is very difficult to interpret other than as declining to take a position… arcticocean ■ 09:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With BLPs we should take the most cautious approach. He’s formally neutral but Ira’s comments read like a delete argument. Jehochman Talk 16:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both for your interest in my opinion. I did not mean to express a preference for keeping or deletion, but I can see why my comments might be read as doing so; I'll post a few words of clarification there this afternoon I've posted a few more thoughts, though I don't know that they'll help anyone. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reviewing the sources in the article, I think they probably are enough to meet the GNG. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I might get flack for this relisting but I noted in their nomination statement that the nominator suggested a Redirect or Merge to Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia) or, on the other hand, List of Wikipedia people. I'm a big believer in ATD so I am hoping that participants might consider these options along with Delete/Keep choices. This AFD discussion can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled al-Ayoubi

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

Article lacks notability. Only citation is a passing mention; found no WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Was prod July 30, 2012, two days after created. Fails WP:GNG. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, Ambassadors are not considered presumptively notable. The article has only one reference, and (WP:NEXIST!) I can't find any coverage in reliable sources focusing on the individual himself; only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that verify he was, indeed, an ambassador. No significant coverage of his involvement in any major diplomatic event, either, nor his involvement in crafting any important treaty or bilateral agreement — two criteria which WP:DIPLOMAT says may suggest notability. A minor, non-notable figure who doesn't merit an article. --AgusTates (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. Just noting that the nominator is a brand new account whose first edits were sending articles to AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:SIGCOV requires high quality references with proper bylines. 190.219.102.29 (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:SIGCOV says nothing about "proper bylines", but nevertheless, I have added references from reliable sources with bylines. I don't believe that he is covered by WP:BLP1E - WP:NOTBLP1E says that "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of the three criteria is met ". Criterion 3 is: "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." The significance of al-Ayoubi resigning and speaking out against the Assad regime is shown not just by the coverage at the time (very well documented), but its inclusion in a 2019 book as a critical point when a member of the regime spoke out against it. I have added sources and information, including biographical info. I believe he meets WP:GNG. (I'd also note that the previous !vote is from an IP address with only two edits, both Delete !votes on articles about Syrian diplomats.) RebeccaGreen (talk)
  • I was able to access the book from 2019, and he's only mentioned once in passing, literally just in one sentence. I don't think that gets us past BLP1E. All of the sourcing is just from that one event apart from retrospectives on the event from the place he now lives. SportingFlyer T·C 05:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review new sources added to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Winchester

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

I do not believe this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. TheSwamphen (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jotham Bradbury Sewall

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

Non-notable academician (fails WP:NACADEMIC). ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 05:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Marc Rives

[edit]
Jean-Marc Rives (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 satisfy WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. The sourcing is very weak, and I haven't been able to find anything better. The great majority of the edits have been made by the WP:SPA User:RJMarco, which from the name seems to be the guy himself. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
The changes made are minimal on links or inaccurate statements and I did not create the article. I do not know who created it. This article should be checked and formatted before thinking about deleting it in my opinion.
Kind regards RJMarco (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
The changes made are minimal on links or inaccurate statements and I did not create the article. I do not know who created it. This article should be checked and formatted before thinking about deleting it in my opinion.
Kind regards
RJMarco (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Tennet

[edit]
Anton Tennet (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 doesn’t seem to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The only reference listed is IMDB. TheSwamphen (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal (podcast)

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

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

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

British Furniture Confederation

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

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

Eva Vik

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

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

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

Kostas Kyriacou

[edit]
Kostas Kyriacou (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)

To clarify upfront: This Kostas Kyriacou (Κώστας Κυριάκου) is not Konstantinos Kyriakou (Κωνσταντίνος Κυριακού), a candidate in the ongoing Greek presidential election who also goes by Kostas Kyriacou. You are much more likely to find hits about this Cypriot perennial candidate if you search up his nickname, Outopos (Ούτοπος).

From what I can tell, he was something of an early internet meme in Cyprus, hence this article's creation in 2008. However, neither of the two citations provided since have been reliable, and it seems to me that there is no in-depth coverage of him in reliable English- or Greek-language sources, just a couple old mentions on YouTube and two TV shows due to his conspiracy theories and quack proposals.

As he has never held political office nor done anything noteworthy of coverage by reliable sources, I don't see how he would pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. If there was an article for every person saying outlandish things who got a mention in local TV, we'd have hundreds of these articles. Yue💌 05:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Brandon Field

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

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

He plays young Daniel Molloy in interview with the vampire which is a significant role within the show and will likely be expanded upon as the series continues. Interview with the vampire doesn't have that many episodes a season but he's had a starring role in two of them so far. Including the episode that was tipped for EMMY nomination
https://collider.com/interview-with-the-vampire-season-2-episode-5-luke-brandon-field/
https://www.thewrap.com/interview-with-the-vampire-daniel-molloy-luke-brandon-field-interview/ Thewandaverse (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Connoisseur's Bakery

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Connoisseur's Bakery (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:CORP. Nothing in google news. 1 of the 2 supplied sources is its website. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already visited AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reptile (Mortal Kombat)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Reptile (Mortal Kombat) (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)

Here's a weird one, but I do feel that this article fails notability, but I feel a need to explain why. While there are sources that discuss Reptile, reception from these sources fall into two categories: he was the first hidden character in a Mortal Kombat title, setting a tone for later games, and that he was featured in many games. A big problem in that regard then is repetition and what you can exactly say about a character, on par with the previous flood of "Top Ten Babes" reception that could be boiled down to "this character is sexy". Digging through books and Google Scholar presents similar: Reptile is mentioned primarily in the scope of his easter egg and no discussion of its impact beyond later secret characters in MK.

During the last AfD, four sources of SIGCOV were also presented, and I want address these here through a source analysis: Den of Geek, GamesRadar+, CBR, and Dualshockers. Of these, the first three are retellings of the character's plot progression: they don't offer reception on the character in a tangible sense, and are mainly useful as secondary sources. Past AfD discussions have shown this is not enough to hold up an article for notability, you need some actual reception from a reliable secondary source discussing their thoughts on the subject. Otherwise we'd have a lot more Pokemon flooding the site. Ultimately to boot these articles were done on most Mortal Kombat characters, and give no indication of particular importance beyond "they were in MK".

The last one, Dualshockers, does offer some reception, and there's a similar article discussing the Mortal Kombat 1 version of the character from the same source. The downside is they're both from the same font, and while I would count Dualshockers as viable, they're still Valnet which is a moment of pause for some.

So the Reader's Digest version of this is that fundamentally we have next to no real discussion for him, certainly not enough to hold up an entire article under current standards. Reptile's always been barely a character, and he can fit well into the list to explain his importance and help the reader grasp why he mattered in the scope of Mortal Kombat. Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia Girls

[edit]
Gaia Girls (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)

After a BEFORE on author Lee Welles, the book series (Gaia Girls), and the individual books in the series (Enter the Earth and Way of Water), I do not think this series meets NBOOK. I have searched for reviews through Google, Google Scholar, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, Kirkus Reviews, JSTOR, and ProQuest. I found one review on Kirkus (cited in the article) and potentially a review in Earth Action Network [6], but I don't have access to the article. Welles has passing mention in Digital Citizenship in Twenty-First-Century Young Adult Literature and an article in PW, but the first doesn't mention the books and neither provide SIGCOV. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are some OK news sources [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] but they are all very local which I am not sure is great for this kind of thing, especially since they call her "local author" and stuff. They're also not much in the way of commentary/reviews. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Found a couple of reviews: This is from Children's Bookwatch, but it's a bit short. The article from EAN mentioned by Significa should be accessible here and is a bit longer. There's also a review in Refrigerated & Frozen Foods Retailer, magazine of some sort, (here) for some reason, but I have no clue whether it's legitimate or not given that it seems a bit unusual. I wouldn't count the Kirkus Review though, since it's from their Indie reviews program. Regardless, I think there's barely enough coverage here, combined with the news sources above, to meet NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 05:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yonsei-KOICA Master's Degree Program

[edit]
Yonsei-KOICA Master's Degree Program (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)

We don't create articles on degrees programs as per WP:NOTGUIDE. If we did, there'd be 100s of 1000s articles on each degree program offered around the world. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Daneshgar

[edit]
David Daneshgar (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 promotional and of questionable WP:SUSTAINED notability, which are not backed up with WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Prakash (educator)

[edit]
Arun Prakash (educator) (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 National Award seems given by a council, not the President and not enough for ANYBIO. There are no other assertions of notability nor indication otherwise he'd be notable Star Mississippi 03:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - There are not enough secondary sources available to warrant him having his own article. Z. Patterson (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lonesome Suzie

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

Poorly referenced article about a song; fails WP:GNG. My WP:BEFORE yielded nothing except passing mentions like [13] (that's one of the better ones - half a sentence...). If nobody can find anything else, maybe per WP:ATD-R, redirect this to the album it appears in, Music from Big Pink? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kitt, Indiana

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

All of the references are only relevant if one assumes that "Kit" and ":Kitt" are the same place; we have no souirces that asserts that. But even with that assumption, the only thing we have, besides a 4th class post office and passing references to locate other things, is its inclusion in a list of failed villages in the county history. Mangoe (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Going through Jay County, Indiana#Further reading:

    The Lewis Biographical pp.474–475 has Kit as a post office run by one Henry F. West, with a grocery store there since 1884. The Bowen Biographical p.556 has Kit as a "town and postoffice" founded by Berkley G. Arthur and named after his dog. The Jay History v.1,p.247 has Kit as one of the "hamlets which still have kept their respective places on the map, though in some instances being little more than memories of the fond hopes entertained by their projectors". The Montgomery History has no Kit at all.

    Just as icing on the cake: de Colange 1884, p. 535, "Kit" has

    Kit, Ind., p.o., Jay co.

    , 1889 Bullinger's Postal and Shipping Guide for the United States has Kit as a post-office on the Portland Railroad, a 1896 USPS directory has

    Kit, Jay ………… Ind

    , and no Lippincott's that I can find has any Kit at all.

    And none of them have a Kitt, which is presumably some foolish BGN false regularization of the dog's and post-office's name.

  • Given that this is a falsely named article that has false claims in its infobox and introduction and second section (which is original research attempting to square the article with the only proper source not saying anything about a Kitt), we might as well delete. The post offices and extinct hamlets of Jay County, per the only source cited for them being a history of Jay county that just gives a list of names, belong in Jay County, Indiana. Uncle G (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • de Colange, Leo (1884). The National Gazetteer: A geographical dictionary of the United States. London: Hamilton Adams & Company. LCCN 03009971. OCLC 4740756. (The National Gazetteer: A geographical dictionary of the United States at the Internet Archive)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jay City, Indiana

[edit]
Jay City, Indiana (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)

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

Support, as there are few, if any, reliable sources that specifically talk about this topic. Z. Patterson (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TaskForceMajella

[edit]
TaskForceMajella (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)

Topic does not appear to be notable. Fails WP:GNG --- cannot find sources about the research program that are independent of the program itself. — hike395 (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zero wait state

[edit]
Zero wait state (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:DICTDEF, with unclear notability, unreferenced since 2009. Can this be fixed, or redirected (probably to Wait state, which is a bit longer, but also very poorly referenced...)? My BEFORE did not show anything useful - the term is used, but I am not seeing any WP:SIGCOV, or even a reliable definition. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Raeside

[edit]
Alison Raeside (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:JUDGE or NBASIC. She is a family court judge. GNG is not fulfilled, as all other sourcing that is not passing is WP:BLP1E, the Murder of Sara Sharif case. Could be merged or redirected there. Other than passing notice and the one event which she was criticized for, there is nothing really to say. No source goes in depth in her as a person. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect — seconding per nominator. That said; In my opinion, there is notability, here, concerning the judge(s) and the original legal decision to shield their names, which was then reversed on-appeal. However, I agree with the nominator, that this is not a qualifier for an article proper. It should re-direct to the murder of Sara Sharif case. In-context, this issue is notable. Sans context, this is a fairly standard legal decision that is made regularly concerning a judge who’s position does not automatically confer notability per WP:JUDGE. Failing consensus on a merge/redirect, I would proffer a weak delete; My only hesitation is that this appears to be a somewhat ongoing topic, so I would hesitate to apply BLP1E. That said, articles can always be re-created, if-needed. MWFwiki (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kuhrt

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

Twin Flames (band)

[edit]
Twin Flames (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)

Nominating for deletion on behalf of the article subject, requested by band member Chelsea Jodoin, per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, WP:GNG and WP:NMG. The article subject believes the band is nonnotable, which should not have an article on Wikipedia. See VRTS ticket # 2025020410000932. Geoff | Who, me? 01:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Custance

[edit]
Lara Custance (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) 00:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV JTZegers (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clue (information)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Clue (information) (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 page doesn't cover anything that isn't already under evidence. All the page does is go over different ways a clue can be used. Pretty redundant if you ask me. GilaMonster536 (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect per above. JungleEntity (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 00:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or redirect per above
— Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 00:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm no linguist but I'd say "Clue" and "Evidence" are distinct enough concepts and the page shouldn't be merged or redirected. A clue guides you to a conclusion, while evidence can be a clue or an indication of objective fact. We have evidence that the world is not flat for example, satellite photos of the Earth are not clues, they are evidence. I'm sure we could debate the semantics around that all day, and an English major could speak to that better than I can, but even the ambiguity alone might be enough for a keep.
I think this page just needs some love. Kylemahar902 (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today&oldid=1238673950"