Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< March 15	March 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

John William Moor

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

There is no real indication of the subject's notability and the subject does not meet WP:GNG nor the guidelines in WP:NPOL. Aneirinn (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nonipsism

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

Non-notable, clearly created by the author to promote his own coined term and work. Remsense ‥ 论 23:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Remsense ‥ 论 23:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur with the nominator, this article exists solely to advertise the essay that it discusses, as made clear by the fact that the essay is the only reference. The only hits I got were forum posts. MediaKyle (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this does not meet WP:GNG and is not a notable subject. The fact that only one author is cited does cause concern that it may be self-promotion. Aneirinn (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a copy of the text in the images, uploaded to Commons, sourced to a 2025-03-13 upload of the same thing to the Internet Archive. This is an abuse of Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia, and the Internet Archive to self-publish a paper on an original hypothesis. It isn't even a researched and properly peer reviewed paper. Otherwise it would have addressed prior work in the field. This is textbook violation of the no original research policy. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doyle Redotelojor Edeni

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

Fails the Wikipedia general notability guideline. Most of the sources are either unreliable, press releases or promotional pieces like this this and this. Ibjaja055 (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is clear and obvious that the article is just a WP:RESUME, WP:PROMO, and lacks WP:RELIABILITY. The author has conflicts of interest. Aneirinn (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Massallay

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

Declined prod. The added source (the only non database one) is just a 1 line mention and not SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. The only coverage I could find is a lab manager of the same name in Sierra Leone, it could be him but doesn't really add to notability. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Sierra Leone. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that subject qualified for the Olympics in three different events, which is exceptional for a Sierra Leonean athlete. Finding sources is notoriously difficult for these sorts of athletes, but it's clear that Sierra Leonean newspapers do exist and were operational during the 1980s when Massallay would have been covered. The WP:Verifiable information we have indicates that coverage is out there, but it likely isn't digitized. I would at least attempt making a contact request out to some of those papers before !voting delete. --Habst (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep broader impact than just participating; see example used in the Swiss national museum regarding to Colonialism and the Olympic Games. 109.38.153.179 (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source mentioning the Swiss National museum [1] is 1 line mention and not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not the Swiss national museum reference pans out, there are actual Sierra Leonean newspapers that were much more likely to have covered the subject. In addition, we have to consider that the SLAA has a qualification process for Olympic selection and by earning so many event selections, Massallay did go beyond just participation at the nation's trials. I think the case for WP:NEXIST here is unusually strong, so I think the keep vote is justified on those grounds. --Habst (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I think the case for WP:NEXIST here is unusually strong" I think the NEXIST argument is particularly weak and no admin has considered it useful when closing these AfDs. LibStar (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we're both allowed to make our case. Why do you think it's weak? --Habst (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been stated to you several times, by several editors including admins about the weakness of using NEXIST. I do not need to waste my time arguing here. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to clarify on "no admin has considered it useful" -- that's not true at all, the NEXIST rationale has been used to close hundreds of AfDs as keep, see for example a list here. --Habst (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Maryland county offices elections

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

Although sources exist to fill out this article with the relevant candidates and results, I do not believe that these elections meet the general notability guidelines. I cannot find more than passing mentions of these elections in local news. The best in-depth source I could find was this archived voter guide from The Washington Post. Rocfan275 (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they have the same notability issues:

Rocfan275 (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete the lot as hardly anything here is a notable race, made obvious by the failure to fill much of the information in. Mangoe (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more opinions for a bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Daveplot, a longtime editor, created this series, but has been inactive as of late. Can I have a couple of days to review this? I know that a number of notable politicians from Maryland started out in county offices, for example, Angela Alsobrooks. Also, I hate to be that kid, but I don't see any notifications to the usual suspects. Bearian (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rocfan275, when you nominate an article for any type of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/etc.), please notify the article creator. It's easiest if you use Twinkle to tag articles for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Bearian (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crypto: The Game

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

Does not meet any notability guidelines and was created by an editor with an COI Bender550 (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Bender550 (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The Fortune source seems to be reliable, secondary, independent, significant coverage (though the article previously sourced quotes from one of the co-creators as being from Fortune, which I edited out). The Axios source seems like trivial coverage of a deal with Adidas and a brief summary of what the show is. To meet WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT, it would need multiple good sources. Truthnope (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator is blocked, but with one !vote I'm not going to close this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Face-Off

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

Fails WP:GNG, has only two sources, neither independent. I can't find any reliable sources to establish notability. Truthnope (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Photography, and Singapore. Truthnope (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real sign of notability here. 190.33.38.230 (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP as a corporate-sponsored program and WP:NTV. Netherzone (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Kobza Workshop (film)

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

Article about a short film, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them in media and books (such as reviews by professional film critics, evidence of notable film awards, production coverage, and the like.)
But this just states that the film exists, makes no claim of significance that would earn it a presumption of notability in the absence of adequate sourcing, and cites only a single directory entry for referencing rather than any evidence of GNG-building coverage.
Simple existence is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a film from having to have GNG-worthy sourcing about it. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Ukraine. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce A. Manning

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

Fails to meet WP:NPROF notability on its face; not a named professor or other criterion. Has been tagged as deficient for over ten years, and not substantially improved in the past decade. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and California. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Environment, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:PROF#C1 and high-cited publications on Google Scholar [2]. But it's weak because I couldn't find much else. He appears to be the chair of his department but that doesn't count as a notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: I'm not !voting due to a potential conflict of interest, but I notified Sandstein, who re-created the article, for comment. I'll get back with you all. Bearian (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've been notified of this discussion, and indeed, according to the page history, I created this article in 2007 with the edit summary "recreated deleted article on user request". I have no recollection whatsoever as to who made this request to me or why I acted on it. But I agree that the article fails our current inclusion standards because it lacks any third-party references and does not describe why its subject might be notable. Sandstein 14:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think those are good arguments to improve the page substantially, but doesn't necessarily tell us whether to keep or delete. Qflib (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:A7, an "article about a real person ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" is subject to speedy deletion. Sandstein 17:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take much (far less than for a keep at an AfD) to save an article from A7 deletion, and I think the article's "He is an expert in environmental chemistry" is enough.

As for actual notability, please note that WP:PROF is not about third-party references and it explicitly states that third-party references are not required as evidence for WP:PROF notability. (Or, put another way, we have thousands of third-party references, all of those papers that cite Manning's papers, and the problem is not one of having too few sources but rather too many to sift through.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that WP:Prof#C1 is satisfied. The work on arsenates is getting 3-figure and 4-figure citation numbers, which is strong for this fairly low-citation field (environmental geochemistry). The page does need some work to flesh it out some more. Qflib (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person was recently promoted to Department Chair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbspbs (talk • contribs) 23:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier, that is not relevant for notability. The only academic notability criterion for administrative work, WP:PROF#C6, is only for heads of entire universities. And #C5 is for chairs given to individual professors in recognition of outstanding scholarship, not for chairs of departments. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prof#C1. As for the potential conflict of interest, it's tenuous: the SFSU President and I went to high school. Substantially, his top articles were cited 1,049, 895, 820, 786, and 569 times. He seems to be a very private person, who never grants interviews. I added a couple of sources. The "expert in" sentence in the lead paragraph is sufficient allegation of notability. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I disagree about WP:NPROF#C1. While one paper with > 1K citations is relevant, if you look at his co-author and also here the contrast is stark; Fendorf has an h-factor of 99 and a string of Fellow elections. From this comparison I don't think that this is really a low citation field. If he had some of those Fellow elections then, of course it would be different. However, without them I view it as close but not sustained enough.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Romantic Revival

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

This page appears to be a mixture of unsourced information, original research, and potentially self-promotion.

The primary source for the page, and for the majority of its life the only source, is a Time Magazine article entitled Festivals: Romantic Revival. The article was published in 1969 and is merely a review of a particular event held that year which featured Romantic music (and which was not even called "Romantic Revival"). The Time article contains no claims about broader historical trends of Romantic music experiencing a revival in the cultural consciousness starting in the 1960s, as the Wikipedia page does. In fact, far from suggesting that this 1969 festival is the beginning of a coming cultural shift, the author is openly derisive of the Romantic music played at the festival.

The text about Ates Orga's championing of the revival, added to the article several years after its initial creation, is supported only by an accompanying reference to a 1977 article written by Orga, and not by any independent source positing the notability of Orga's activities.

The text about the Romantic Revival Orchestra, added to the article quite recently, appears to be entirely self-promotion. No source is provided other than a link to the website of the entity described.

Note that the page has existed on Wikipedia for almost 20 years and as such may have influenced sources written after 2007, if not in any particulars of fact, then at least in the claim of the existence, naming, and notability of a "Romantic Revival" in classical music in the 1960s.

(The above rationale was adapted from an AfD request I filed last year that wasn't taken up.) — flamingspinach | (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and History. — flamingspinach | (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it doesn't look like the sourcing is at all there to support the idea that this was a musical movement. Since the article says Harold C. Schonberg was a champion of it in the New York Times I searched the full archive for that paper and as near as I can tell he never used the phrase, and the paper itself only used the phrase talking about other eras, or just casually saying that there's been a revival in interest in this kind of music lately, without saying anything about it being a specific movement. This article appears to be advancing an original argument the sources don't make. --Here2rewrite (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are academic sources that discuss the existence of a Romantic Revival though this article doesn't include them.[3][4][5] This might be a case of WP:TNT. desmay (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of information about a "romantic revival" in literature in the 19th century, which is what your source #2 is about, and probably what source #1 is about as well though I don't have access to it. But that doesn't support this article, which is about a revival of romantic music in the mid 20th century.

The third article you linked is not an academic source - it's an editorial column from a paleoconservative monthly magazine with "close ties to the neo-Confederate movement", according to its Wikipedia article. It was also written a full 10 years after Romantic Revival was first published on Wikipedia, for whatever that's worth. — flamingspinach | (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources have been provided to warrant an article, even of the current quality of the article is low. Cortador (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you list some of those sources? I've mentioned why I think the ones currently included in the article don't support the statements made in the article or are otherwise unsuitable. If you're referring to the comment above yours, I've addressed those as well in a reply. — flamingspinach | (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This subject did exist - there was an infamous prototype of an infomercial that sold Romantic music for the masses. My parents were of the Silent generation who listened to folk music and this genre. It's enough of an essay that I can't !vote to approve it. Please ping me when you add the found sources and cut out the OR. Bearian (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there sources about the topic in this article? Whether they exist for a different subject does not help for notability here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johab Pascal

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

Fails WP:GNG. Some sources but not enough to establish notability. He made one appearance for Bordeaux in the Coupe de France over three years ago, but nothing else. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Van Lam Hai

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

Contested prod. Whilst 3rd party sources are always welcome, the 3 added sources are all 1 line mentions [6], [7], [8] and not SIGCOV. We need indepth coverage to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Vietnam. LibStar (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I found several sources describing the subject as a 'big name' and 'famous' in Vietnam in the early 1990s. I think this boosts the case for WP:NEXIST, understanding that athletics in Vietnam was popular at that time and we can expect that Vietnamese newspapers would have covered Van in more depth.

There was a well-known digitization gap in the 1990s during the subject's era, before most newspapers published online versions but after most archives end. I don't think it's impossible to find more sourcing, but having an editor in Vietnam who might be more familiar with the local news scene to assist would be a start. --Habst (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kennedy (author)

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

Inadequate article, notabiltiy, and sourcing. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could hardly even find confirmation that this person is an author. [9] is about all there is. One source isn't enough for AUTHOR. The article now in wiki only has a primary source. Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and North Carolina. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vote FOR keeping, and AGAINST deleting : Yes, of course the initial article is short on details.

The brief volume of content often happens in brand new articles. I was motivated to create the initial page because when one searches in en.wikipedia.org for "Chris Kennedy", one often instead gets search results for "Christopher G. Kennedy". The difference needed to be clarified. I trust that I and others will eventually expand the content of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by LP-mn (talk • contribs) 2025-03-17 00:10:46 (UTC)
- And how are you expecting such expansion to happen? What proper, independent, reliable, non-autobiographical biographical sources exist for this person anywhere? You have not cited a single one. At the moment, the article contains two explicit advertisements exhorting the reader in the imperative, and an autobiography, which is totally against basic Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard policy. You should not be writing advertisements here. Uncle G (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shemford Futuristic School, Muzaffarpur

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

No evidence of any notability. All refs are either affiliated or trivial. Searches find nothing more reliable. PROD removed from article by author without significant improvement. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:55, 16 March 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kennedy

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

Inadequate article, notabiltiy, and sourcing. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wrong page! I thought I was still on the author page, must have jumped.

Can someone please back out this nomination? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:16, 16 March 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.

Indira IVF

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Routine corp news or WP:NEWSORGINDIA type of sources are not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Gheus (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Indira IVF meets WP:NCORP as a leading fertility clinic network in India with 150+ centers, significant media coverage (Economic Times, Livemint, VCCircle, Financial Express), and a $1.1 billion private equity acquisition (BPEA EQT). Its IPO plans, industry leadership, and national healthcare impact establish WP:CORPDEPTH. Coverage goes beyond routine news, highlighting business growth, societal influence, and medical advancements. MH-wiki2025 (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ORGTRIV, routine funding rounds, M&As are not helpful. Gheus (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MH-wiki2025:, this is the same argument in other deletion discussions of pages you created. I will again ask the same question....can you point out the specific references that meet WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bader Alomair

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

There are plenty of sources that carry a fleeting mention of his involvement in some extradition cases but none which treat the subject in depth that would establish notability. BEFORE (in English) reveals much of the same. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as the author of the article I probably oughtn't to vote but regardless of the current depth of coverage (which isn't bad) I am reasonably confident that there remain other sources which I have not yet located, either in English or in Arabic. The BBC News article refers to some of them: "We discovered news articles highlighting instances of Mr Alomair helping those left homeless by a hurricane in Florida, for example. But we also discovered his assistance had extended to more controversial situations." I couldn't find anything on the former incident but it looks like something's out there. RexSueciae (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Virginia and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail anybio as there are not sources with enough depths of independent coverage and interest. Unicorbia (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily has significant coverage from the Washington Post and BBC. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KRQZ

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

This station is a classic case of a rebroadcaster of national Christian radio networks, though it was recently sold from one to another. Unlike most, it once had some local programming, but the notability case is thin enough to suggest a redirect to ESNE Radio instead of the current content. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 01:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and California. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 01:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ESNE Radio: I suspect if there was enough significant coverage to justify retaining a separate article here (beyond the 2001 Santa Maria Times article), the nominator would not have taken this to AfD. That seems not to be the case; redirecting as an alternative to deletion may be the best that can be done here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any takers for the ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANSER

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

This is an article on a particularly important company, however, it has languished for eight years with only two marginal sources, a situation faced by many B2B and B2G firms. Unfortunately, a thorough WP:BEFORE search fails to find anything that could redeem it, however, this may be frustrated a bit by the non-unique name. I would particularly welcome anyone who can salvage this article and will happily withdraw this nomination if someone can but, I'm afraid, from where I'm sitting right now -- having exhausted a variety of avenues -- deletion is the only realistic outcome. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, or move to draft. I was able to find a reasonable tertiary source (talking more about the president of the entity than the entity itself, but still supporting its history and notability) without too much difficulty on Newspapers.com, which returns enough hits to suggest that sufficient sourcing exists. BD2412 T 17:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also returned a lot of hits on newspapers.com. When I started to read individual articles, however, they were on things that were not this company. Chetsford (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it's "a particularly important company" then it should never have been proposed for deletion! That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I would love for us to have a policy or guideline called "Chetsford said it's important", as of now my subjective belief of a person or thing's importance using personal criteria of importance, unfortunately, do not trump our standards to determine WP:N. Perhaps one day that will change. Chetsford (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If this article has languished for years, what new sources have been found to establish notability now?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Royce Cronin

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

Completely unreferenced article about an actor. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party media coverage about them and their performances -- but this cites no references at all, and is written in a semi-advertorialized tone that's not complying with WP:NPOV.
As he's a British actor whose strongest claims to potentially passing NACTOR are television roles from 20 years ago, I'm willing to withdraw this if a British editor with better access to archived UK media coverage from the noughts can find enough GNG-worthy sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any referencing. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, England, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG, NACTOR and SIGCOV. Also contains WP:SELFPROMO, as at least one, probably both, of the IP edits is/are by the subject himself. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Garcia

AfDs for this article:

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

I've declined a speedy deletion request as this isn't substantially identical (or even similar) to the version that was deleted at AfD last year. However, none of the previously raised concerns appear to have been addressed—this is still sourced exclusively to routine coverage in databases, with no indication of significant coverage (by Wikipedia's definition of the term). ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT. The subject is not notable and is extremely unlikely to become notable in the future. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous two discussions. Non-notable indy/minor league player. Jordano^5³ 22:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and salt. This person hasn't played since 2009, so there's no coverage to be found since then it seems. We looked last time at AfD and nothing... Nor do I see anything that's come up since then. Salt and be done with this. Oaktree b (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete. Article appears to be AI puffery and the subject is clearly not notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Ode-to-Napoleon" hexachord

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

The article is poorly written and the citations do not verify the existence of an "'Ode to Napoleon' hexachord". Trumpetrep (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Friedmann 1990 book, the very first source cross-referenced by the article body, I find on page 113:
This hexachord, called by some the "magic" hexachord, is used in Schoenberg's Ode to Napoleon Bonaparte.
Similarly, the Straus 2005 book does call (014589) "the hexatonic collection" on page 97 and then proceed to have a section about the hexatonic collection on page 149. Then some quick searching to find something not cited by the article turns up Richard Cohn's Audacious Euphony which says in a footnote to "a hexatonic scale, alternating semitone and minor third" on page 20:
Jazz players know the same pattern as the augmented scale, […] It has also been referred to variously as the Ode to Napoleon collection, Miracle hexachord, Liszt model, source-set E, 1:3 collection, and set class 6–20.
All these certainly seem like a lot of verification of the existence of this. Uncle G (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The statement by the proposer that "the citations do not verify the existence of an 'Ode to Napoleon' hexachord" is false and it is peculiar that the proposer has made this statement, given the fact that they do. Aneirinn (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taxi Maxim

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

No indication of importance No source was found either within the article or outside the article that meet notability. According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV), a subject must receive significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to merit an article. All sources used herein are not secondary and do not comply with Wikipedia rules WP:ORGTRIV WP:SECONDARY. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, product placement, press releases, branding campaigns, advertisements, and paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. Information that a company has started operating in a particular country is still not proof of notability, since it is not a measure of the attention the company has received as well (WP:SPIP). By not deleting this article, Wikipedia risks breaching its own policies designed to maintain the quality and reliability of its content. Therefore, I recommend that the article be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Segovia Ar (talk • contribs) 06:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Transportation, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A ride hailing service that operates in 1000 cities in 18 countries has a strong claim of notability. The nominator is a Single-purpose account entirely focused on Taxi Maxim. They began by adding content to the article and now they have decided to try to delete the article. Certainly, the article can be improved but deletion is not the correct outcome. I am confident that a Russian speaking editor familiar with Russia's business media could improve the article. Cullen328 (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almir Badnjević

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

Fails WP:NPROF. Associate/assistant professors are rarely notable [10] and his research impact is not very high [11]. Fails WP:GNG as well. Gheus (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Our article says he is a full professor since 2022, so the nominator's comment about associate professors would seem to be completely irrelevant (also dubiously valid: assistant professors are rarely notable but for associate professors I don't think that presumption applies and we need to take each case on a case-by-case basis). Membership in European Academy of Sciences and Arts (note: EASA, not the less-prestigious EURASC) might be enough for WP:PROF#C3, and I think #C3 is even more clear through membership in a national academy (Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina). Editor-in-chief of a journal from a major publisher (SAGE) might be enough for WP:PROF#C8. And I think his citation record (h-index 37, with 9 triple-digit citation counts) is less weak than the nominator states, enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hany Rashwan

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

Fails WP:GNG. None of the cited articles are directly about him. Gheus (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chinnakannan Sivasankaran

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

Fails WP:GNG. There are a lot of WP:NEWSORGINDIA type of sources, web desk reports. Lacks high-quality in-depth sources. The companies he founded are notable but notability cannot be WP:INHERITED. Gheus (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Frantz

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

This page doesn't reach WP:NACADEMIC, nor other notability criteria. The facts aren't in dispute, as Frantz is doubtless one of the main clinical contributors to a range of clinical trials. No named chair; impact of research is minimal (Scopus H-index 13), and that is obtained almost exclusively from mid-author publications. The most cited of their 1st-author publications seems to be Franz et al, 1989 (American Journal of Ophthalmology, 1989, 108(5), pp. 524–528), with 26 citations. The English is clear; the references are clear, and the article creator has declared the nature of their contact with Frantz in an edit summary here. Klbrain (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG Notability Criteria

Hi! While this at times has been frustrating, I do want to thank you for your diligence in keeping Wikipedia free of spam and promotional content and making sure entries meet rigorous standards. That said, I’d like to emphasize the sheer scale of Dr. Frantz’s contributions. I believe this case merits closer consideration. Not trying to be hyperbolic, but LASIK is one of the most transformative medical advancements in history, shifting vision correction from a lifelong dependency on glasses to a permanent solution for tens of millions all over the world.

I will also present an academic argument against the criticism about being a mid-tier author.

Before excimer laser research, there was no surgical way to correct nearsightedness, farsightedness, or astigmatism—now, it is the most common elective surgery globally.

One of the critiques of this article is “minimal impact.” That couldn't be further from the truth. The research behind excimer laser technology laid the foundation for LASIK, and Dr. Jonathan Frantz was directly involved in those early FDA trials that helped bring it to market. His contributions weren’t theoretical—they were part of the regulatory approval process that turned laser vision correction into mainstream medicine.

Dr. Jonathan Frantz meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for academics and medical professionals (WP:NACADEMIC) and the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). The deletion rationale states that his research impact is minimal, but this does not account for his significant role in the development and FDA approval of laser vision correction, a transformative advancement in ophthalmology and modern medicine.

== Major Contributions to Ophthalmology & FDA-Approved Treatments ==

Dr. Frantz was a principal investigator in clinical trials that contributed to FDA approvals for major ophthalmic treatments, including excimer laser technology (LASIK/PRK) and glaucoma drug Lumigan (bimatoprost).

His early excimer laser research in the 1980s laid the foundation for what became the most common vision correction surgery worldwide, with millions of procedures performed annually.

His clinical trial leadership is documented in peer-reviewed journals such as Ophthalmology, Archives of Ophthalmology, and Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science.

== Addressing the "Mid-Author" Criticism ==

A critique has been raised regarding Dr. Frantz’s role as a mid-author in publications. However, it is important to recognize how authorship in medical research is structured. In academic institutions, attending physicians—who are responsible for maintaining tenureship and securing funding—are required to take first authorship on studies, even when much of the research and writing is done by fellows, residents, and junior researchers. This is standard practice across academic medicine and does not diminish the contributions of those in secondary author positions. In fact, fellows and researchers at this stage are typically responsible for the majority of the hands-on research, data analysis, and drafting of papers. The fact that Frantz appears as a named author in major peer-reviewed journals demonstrates his active participation in high-level clinical research, even if he is not always listed as the first author. Dismissing his contributions based solely on authorship order misrepresents how medical and scientific research operates.

== Peer-Reviewed Citations & Research Impact ==

While it is noted that many of his citations are mid-author, Frantz has also co-authored first-author studies on FDA-approved treatments and has been widely cited in refractive surgery research.

His published works contributed to clinical studies that helped validate PRK, LASIK, and advanced intraocular lenses.

His research appears in top-tier medical journals with dozens of citations, demonstrating lasting academic influence.

== Independent Media Coverage Establishes GNG Notability ==

WINK News (CBS affiliate) featured Dr. Frantz in 2019 as the first surgeon in Southwest Florida to implant the newly FDA-approved PanOptix trifocal intraocular lens for cataract patients.^[1]

The Naples Daily News reported on his introduction of the VERION image-guided cataract surgery system.^[2]

He has been featured in trade publications such as Ophthalmology Management and EyeWorld, which are independent industry sources.^[3]

== Meets WP:NACADEMIC via Clinical Research & Institutional Recognition ==

Frantz has led NIH-sponsored research and presented at major medical conferences, including the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO).

His work has been cited in national-level clinical studies that shaped current refractive surgery techniques.

He has received industry-recognized awards, including the American Academy of Ophthalmology Achievement Award and being listed among America’s Top Ophthalmologists by independent rankings.

== Conclusion ==

Dr. Frantz’s contributions to ophthalmology meet both WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG standards. His pivotal role in developing FDA-approved eye treatments, extensive peer-reviewed publications, and independent media coverage confirm his lasting impact in the field.

This is a case where the subject’s contributions to medical science, rather than pure citation metrics, establish notability. I also have presented the argument against the criticism about being a mid-tier author. If any specific sections are seen as non-encyclopedic or promotional, I am happy to review and refine them to align with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Editora89119 (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editora89119 It's worth noting for future editors that you are the creator of this article. You also are a WP:SPA editor, so it's worth mentioning that if you have a connection to Jonathan Frantz, you are required to disclose a Conflict of Interest per our Conflict of interest policy. GuardianH 22:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have some sympathy with those who publish academic work but are not based in a university. It seems to me that we provide a record for posterity of quite a lot of very nondescript professors who've got themselves into a named chair and merely sat in it doing a bit of teaching, while academics who move out into industry and health care can influence lives dramatically, publish, and still be considered unworthy of a record here. Unfortunately I can't justify keeping Frantz based on Wikipedia's policies, but his article is a better read than those of quite a few distinguished chief editors who've done no notable research. Elemimele (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elemimele:

You comments are thoughtful and helpful because I believe there is a larger concern at play.

If Wikipedia is now biased against private practices, that will have a chilling effect, greatly limiting the information available on Wikipedia and in fact making it an irrelevant source of information. Medical advancements and innovations often come from practitioners who are outside of traditional university systems, and excluding them from documentation would create an incomplete and skewed representation of history.

You raise an important issue about how Wikipedia determines notability for medical professionals outside of traditional academia. Dr. Frantz’s case is exactly that—his influence has been clinical, research-based, and regulatory, rather than tied to a university professorship.

While I respect the concern that Wikipedia's policies lean toward academic tenure as a qualifier, I’d like to emphasize that Frantz’s contributions meet the standard of significant impact in medicine. He played a direct role in clinical trials leading to FDA approvals for laser vision correction (LASIK/PRK) and glaucoma treatments, both of which have transformed millions of lives. His work appears in peer-reviewed journals, has been cited in further ophthalmic research, and has been featured in independent media, all of which demonstrate broad recognition beyond his private practice.

I understand the need to apply Wikipedia’s policies consistently, but WP:NACADEMIC explicitly includes individuals who have made significant research contributions and whose work has been cited as significant within their field—a standard that Dr. Frantz meets. Additionally, WP:GNG (General Notability Guideline) does not require university affiliation, only significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, which has been provided.

If you believe there are ways to better structure the article to focus on its strongest encyclopedic elements, I’d welcome any suggestions. The goal is not promotion, but to ensure that Wikipedia reflects the full scope of notable contributions to modern medicine—including those that happen outside of academia.

Thanks again for your perspective! Editora89119 (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG Notability Criteria

Hi! While this at times has been frustrating, I do want to thank you for your diligence in keeping Wikipedia free of spam and promotional content and making sure entries meet rigorous standards. That said, I’d like to emphasize the sheer scale of Dr. Frantz’s contributions. I believe this case merits closer consideration. Not trying to be hyperbolic, but LASIK is one of the most transformative medical advancements in history, shifting vision correction from a lifelong dependency on glasses to a permanent solution for tens of millions all over the world.

I will also present an academic argument against the criticism about being a mid-tier author.

Before excimer laser research, there was no surgical way to correct nearsightedness, farsightedness, or astigmatism—now, it is the most common elective surgery globally.

One of the critiques of this article is “minimal impact.” That couldn't be further from the truth. The research behind excimer laser technology laid the foundation for LASIK, and Dr. Jonathan Frantz was directly involved in those early FDA trials that helped bring it to market. His contributions weren’t theoretical—they were part of the regulatory approval process that turned laser vision correction into mainstream medicine.

Dr. Jonathan Frantz meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for academics and medical professionals (WP:NACADEMIC) and the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). The deletion rationale states that his research impact is minimal, but this does not account for his significant role in the development and FDA approval of laser vision correction, a transformative advancement in ophthalmology and modern medicine.

== Major Contributions to Ophthalmology & FDA-Approved Treatments ==

Dr. Frantz was a principal investigator in clinical trials that contributed to FDA approvals for major ophthalmic treatments, including excimer laser technology (LASIK/PRK) and glaucoma drug Lumigan (bimatoprost).

His early excimer laser research in the 1980s laid the foundation for what became the most common vision correction surgery worldwide, with millions of procedures performed annually.

His clinical trial leadership is documented in peer-reviewed journals such as Ophthalmology, Archives of Ophthalmology, and Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science.

== Addressing the "Mid-Author" Criticism ==

A critique has been raised regarding Dr. Frantz’s role as a mid-author in publications. However, it is important to recognize how authorship in medical research is structured. In academic institutions, attending physicians—who are responsible for maintaining tenureship and securing funding—are required to take first authorship on studies, even when much of the research and writing is done by fellows, residents, and junior researchers. This is standard practice across academic medicine and does not diminish the contributions of those in secondary author positions. In fact, fellows and researchers at this stage are typically responsible for the majority of the hands-on research, data analysis, and drafting of papers. The fact that Frantz appears as a named author in major peer-reviewed journals demonstrates his active participation in high-level clinical research, even if he is not always listed as the first author. Dismissing his contributions based solely on authorship order misrepresents how medical and scientific research operates.

== Peer-Reviewed Citations & Research Impact ==

While it is noted that many of his citations are mid-author, Frantz has also co-authored first-author studies on FDA-approved treatments and has been widely cited in refractive surgery research.

His published works contributed to clinical studies that helped validate PRK, LASIK, and advanced intraocular lenses.

His research appears in top-tier medical journals with dozens of citations, demonstrating lasting academic influence.

== Independent Media Coverage Establishes GNG Notability ==

WINK News (CBS affiliate) featured Dr. Frantz in 2019 as the first surgeon in Southwest Florida to implant the newly FDA-approved PanOptix trifocal intraocular lens for cataract patients.^[4]

The Naples Daily News reported on his introduction of the VERION image-guided cataract surgery system.^[5]

He has been featured in trade publications such as Ophthalmology Management and EyeWorld, which are independent industry sources.^[6]

== Meets WP:NACADEMIC via Clinical Research & Institutional Recognition ==

Frantz has led NIH-sponsored research and presented at major medical conferences, including the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO).

His work has been cited in national-level clinical studies that shaped current refractive surgery techniques.

He has received industry-recognized awards, including the American Academy of Ophthalmology Achievement Award and being listed among America’s Top Ophthalmologists by independent rankings.

== Conclusion ==

Dr. Frantz’s contributions to ophthalmology meet both WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG standards. His pivotal role in developing FDA-approved eye treatments, extensive peer-reviewed publications, and independent media coverage confirm his lasting impact in the field.

This is a case where the subject’s contributions to medical science, rather than pure citation metrics, establish notability. I also have presented the argument against the criticism about being a mid-tier author. If any specific sections are seen as non-encyclopedic or promotional, I am happy to review and refine them to align with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Editora89119 (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A cursory search of any significant coverage of this subject in independent secondary sources reveals very little besides sources connected to the subject directly. He seems to be an accomplished surgeon locally, but by no means appears to warrant national attention or meets the WP:GNG in terms of coverage. There is a local news Florida Weekly profile and a 2008 lawsuit implicating him of medical malpractice. It certainly doesn't help that the article as it is currently written reads like a WP:PROMOTION promotional showcase and personal resume. GuardianH 22:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suicidal-Idol

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

Sources are almost entirely user-generated content, self-published, or non-independent. Few to no sources to establish independent notability of artist. Will include source analysis below. benǝʇᴉɯ 20:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. benǝʇᴉɯ 20:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source analysis:

User-generated content:

3: Fan-made video about Suicidal-Idol, also doesn't cite any sources

6, 8, 12, 25, 35: Genius links for someone named FabFantasy, two Suicidal-Idol songs, and tour dates

13: Songfacts page about her song "Ecstacy"

26: Setlist.fm page for user-uploaded concert setlists

Self-published:

21: YouTube vlog, seemingly posted by Suicidal-Idol about her own concert

9, 10, 40: Spotify links for Suicidal-Idol's songs

14: SoundCloud link for "Ecstacy" remix

16, 17, 18, 19, 24: Apple Music links for remixes of "Ecstacy" and her song "Tell Me That U Love Me"

Non-independent:

1, 4, 5, 7: Identical bios initially posted by her touring company and reproduced on several sites

22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34: Concert pages and flyers on venue/touring websites and on Instagram + no additional info on Suicidal-Idol

Primary source:

2: Bizapedia page about "Suicidal Idol LLC", formed in 2023

Passing mentions:

15: Daily Dot article about TikTok trend using "Ecstacy", only includes one sentence mentioning her (On July 17, 2023, SUICIDAL-IDOL shared their track, “ecstasy.” The lyrics include the now trendy phrase.)

20: College radio station's review of Snow Strippers concert where Suicidal-Idol also performed (SUICIDAL-IDOL, a project by dance/electronic musician Alupe Tolentino, started out strong with glitchy energy that seemed reminiscent of 100gecs. Their last song "ecstasy", an infamous TikTok audio, prompted Tolentino to hype up the formerly listless audience ("Time to get your phones out for this one!"). Even then, I could only see a third of the crowd following through.) benǝʇᴉɯ 20:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The other reliable sources I could find mentioning Suicidal-Idol are all mostly about her song "Ecstacy":

Billboard: SUICIDAL-IDOL's "Ecstasy" reaches a new peak, jumping into the top 10 for the first time at No. 3.

Switched on Pop: We don't really know who this person is. It's an artist who has used the name gore.x.shawty and Heartfelt and is currently going by Suicidal-Idol. They have a song called "Ecstacy" which was originally released in July of 2021 but just went viral on TikTok in 2023, especially with the slowed-down remix of the song.

Official Charts: Earning their first Top 40 entry today are Suicidal-Idol on their viral debut track Ecstasy (33) ...

Polygon: On Oct. 2, a humor account with the handle homestucklover398 shared a video where a young boyish voice sang a parody of the 2022 song "ecstacy" by Suicidal-Idol. The video and sound became an overnight hit on TikTok, where people reacted to the seemingly nonsensical lyrics of the song.

Looking at this now, it might make more sense to merge this into the page for "Ecstacy", but I'll wait to see what others think. benǝʇᴉɯ 20:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed most of the citations. EternalBaile (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added reliable sources, removed user-generated content, self-published, or non-independent citations. EternalBaile (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With other sources gone, Suicidal-Idol's career section is now entirely about "Ecstacy", except for the first sentence which is still sourced to a Genius page. Also, other than the sources I listed above, the additions are mostly still unreliable sources. Know Your Meme is user-generated content, Distractify is considered generally unreliable, and RateYourMusic is deprecated. benǝʇᴉɯ 06:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Ecstacy. Person is notable, but insufficient citations. If @EternalBaile's references are alright, then Keep. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 00:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting a musician to one of their songs or albums is uncommon in Wikipedia history because if one of the releases is notable, the musician is typically notable for that reason. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Despite some comments above, the article (as I type this) still has a bunch of unreliable sources. For actual reliable sources on this musician, I don't think they are only about "Ecstacy" and even if they were it wouldn't matter. The musician satisfies criterion #2 at WP:NMUSICIAN: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." They also have a sales certification from RIAA. Admittedly there is little to work with because the musician is relatively new to the scene, but for now there is enough for stub article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep whether or not the sources in the article are reliable, the subject meets WP:SINGER by having a song chart in several countries - and since that is supported by reliable sources, there is no grounds for this article to be deleted. jolielover♥talk 05:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Literary work

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

This page is just a dictionary entry, and doesn't cover any ground not covered by Literature. It was created as a stub in 2005 and remained unexpanded for a year before being converted into a redirect. It stayed a redirect for almost 20 years before @Piotrus changed it back into a stub. Except for some category maintenance, it hasn't been expanded. It needs to go back to being a redirect. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a stub, with plenty of potential for development, as seen from the sources cited (the topic is notable, with plenty of WP:SIGCOV, and is the main article for Category:Literary works). Which is a different topic from literature (a bit more narrow - it's like saying we don't need article on car, because we have automotive industry...). It exists as an article in 13 other Wikipedias. It simply needs to be expanded. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP (or explicitly: WP:IMPATIENT). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanded how? What's a thing that's a "literary work" but not "literature"? Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The concept of literature and a literary work are related but distinct ideas in literary studies. Literature is a broader concept encompassing not just literary works but also theories, genres, traditions, and critical perspectives on literature (ex. discussions about what qualifies as literature, its purpose, and its role in society). Literary Work is a more narrow concept, and refers to a specific piece of literature, such as a novel, poem, play, or essay. If you need an example. Concepts like steampunk, poetry, or rhyme are part of literature, but are not literary works. Literary works are specific works like [name a random book or poem here]. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Your automotive analogy is faulty. We have novel, short story, play, poetry, etc. for literature. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Just not seeing the separation here. Everything could be covered at literature. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyperbolick The article is currently being expanded. Do take a look. Also pinging @Astaire, @Clarityfiend _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't think it's possible to expand this article any further without creating redundancy with Literature. Astaire (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect because, as I have noted above, there are already articles on the various types of literary works, which are listed at Literature#Types. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is possible to expand the article. And clearly some of you would be amazed at the amount that the world has written trying to define what a work is, and having wild disagreements with one another to the extent that they don't even agree about abstractions. literary work is to literature as work of art is to art and musical work is to music, to put it somewhat simplistically. Moreover there are several other definitions of literature (e.g. scientific literature, or the literature of a particular country or language) that do not apply to literary works; which our literature article is truly terrible at explaining, making it seem like they are the same thing to people who haven't read (for starters) Raymond Williams, Peter Lamarque, or Nie Zhenzhao on the subject. Uncle G (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody refers to a scientific paper as a literary work. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, @Clarityfiend. That's exactly what Uncle G is saying. -- asilvering (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend You have never heard of ethnofiction? Not being sarcastic, it's pretty niche. But I wager that this subfield invalidates your argument here... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's expandable, then somebody would have expanded it by now. Find something, anything, to say about "literary work" that isn't redundant with "literature". Even one sentence would be enough to make your case. But if you can't write that one sentence, why even argue for saving the article? Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, it existed only for a few weeks (as a stub). Second, a lot of very notable but a bit abstract concepts don't have Wikipedia articles yet. Third, you are conviniently ignoring the fact that a dozen+ wikipedias are prefectly happy to have articles on this (and literature), and nobody there is seeing the need to merge or delete them. Fourth, it seems Uncle G is expanding this right now. Please do take a picture of you WP:TROUTing yourself. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your comments civil. If you can't be bothered, I can't be bothered to engage with you. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was a joke, please. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If my last comment was a bit off, sorry. That said, I believe WP:TROUT applies to this nom. As well as a failure of carrying out a WP:BEFORE, or even reviewing the refs present in the article at the time it was nominated, each of which deals with the concept of "literary work" in a way that clearly meets WP:SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I make my share of silly mistakes on Wikipedia. But not this time. I took care to describe how this stub went unexpanded for a whole year, spent 20 years as a redirect, then another four months as an unexpanded stub. You chose to ignore all that and make fun of me. I'm not going to engage with you further. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since in your post above you contradict yourself, treating four months as an entire year - yeah, I don't think there's much else I can say except what I already did. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - User:Uncle G has now expanded the article and its potential has become evident. My concern is that the article, due to the possible arguments about its scope, might become a magnet for controversy and use up editor time unproductively. If we follow Peter Lamarque, this page might have a solid topic but how many people follow Lamarque? EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this discussion would benefit from a brief summary of what content might belong here but would not belong at the literature article. It would make it easier to make an informed decision about the merits of having a stand-alone article on the topic "literary work" (i.e. make a WP:PAGEDECIDE call). TompaDompa (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa, could this be it? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'm asking. "The article can be expanded with this" is a partial answer, so to speak—are there other things it could also be expanded with? Or contrarily, could that instead be covered in the other article? TompaDompa (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, literary work is a subset of a broader concept of literature (just like, let's say, science fiction film is a subtopic of science fiction). Here, we can discuss some topics (related to what is or isn't literary work, what are their characteristics, etc.) more broadly. For example, the idea that most scientific work is not literary work - encyclopedic nugget of information that does not need to be present in article on literature. And various other things mentioned in the article here, not mentioned in literature. Up to an including various definitions and disagreements regarding the very concept of literary work, which Uncle G discusses in his write up - important stuff that has little need of being merged or discussed extensively in article on literature (where at best a brief summary of this can be included). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My answer below, as to "other things it could also be expanded with", would be "an additional thousand years of arguing about what is and is not a literary work," for which I can particularly think of material from the 18thC and the 1920s. (Also some material on whether letter collections are literary works.) In addition to adding sections on specific periods/debates, I think that would also lend itself to a section on commonly-cited characteristics of literary works, e.g., complex or elevated language; moral improvement of readers; non-commercial or non-political content; etc. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ignore all rules for the bigger picture. I'm absolutely certain that our core readership - secondary school and college students - will be looking for this article. Bearian (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the current state of the article now shows, there is a large and somewhat exhausting body of scholarship debating what constitutes a "literary" "work". Getting into the details of this definition at literature would weigh that article down, as it is tasked with the already-large problem of summarizing everything else about literature. I think it would be useful to treat this as a spin-out of the current "Definitions" section at literature; accomplishing that effectively would expand literary work even further with a longer historical overview of these debates, since they didn't begin in the 20thC. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Literature. A editor from mars (talk) 09:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFDNOTAVOTE... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salman (myth)

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

This article – an ORPHAN'd stub – has existed for nearly 20 years, and as far as I can tell, during this time it has not had a single reliable source to support its contents. Put simply I don't think this deity is even real – the only source it has right now doesn't mention it at all, and is used to source the existence of another deity that the article claims it might be related to – again, with no source. This might be a WP:HOAX record! Sinclairian (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Middle East. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment original source was https://web.archive.org/web/20160304193127/https://pantheon.org/articles/s/salman.html (blacklisted) "Salman" entry in Encyclopedia Mythica, since removed. Article content seems to confuse Shalman (deity), Shalman (Bible) and Shulmanu. fiveby(zero) 17:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As well as Shalim, based on the Solomon claim. Sinclairian (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How's your German? Salman appears to be from inscriptions found at Dadan:
Höfner M. (1970). Die Religionen Altsyriens, Altarabiens und der Mandaer. p. 372. SLMN (Salmän)... cited by Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible DDD our only reference.

del Carmen Hidalgo-Chacón Díez, Maria (2016). "The Divine Names at Dadan: A Philological Approach". Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies. 46: 127–8. JSTOR 45163422.

Höfner M. (1965). "Salmän". Götter und Mythen im Vorderen Orient.
Pretty confusing but maybe a redirect to Shalim? fiveby(zero) 19:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the sources are referring to Shalim, not some god named "Salman". Sinclairian (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Höfner in any case does refer to a god under the name of "Salmān". So there's that, even though I don't get yet if that may be the same god as Shalim. Höfner refers back to yet another source on the topic:

Caskel, Werner. Lihyan und Lihyanisch. pp. 46, 48–49, 58.
Thanks for Caskel, i'll try to find a full copy. I'm wondering how Šulmán from William F. Albright (JSTOR 41662002) and S/Šalmänu from Karen Radner (both seemingly covered in the Shulmanu article) are related to our S/Šalmän. Šalmän and Šulmán are described as Syro-Mesopotamian (Becking does cite Albright but not very clear) and Šalmänu described as Akkadian (one source clearly discussing our Šalmän cites Radner.) I don't know if i'm reading the sources correctly or maybe our sources just cannot be definitive as to how they are related. fiveby(zero) 18:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After following the citations. Becking's 'Shalman' entry is a valid reference, same deity, it is just his particular choice of romanization. Maria Höfner from above has: "Salmän (Šalmän)", S with caron (see del Carmen Hidalgo-Chacón Díez above Figure 4 and "in Dadanitic, the reflex of the Proto-Semitic */š/ and */s/ was pronounced [ʃ]". There probably won't ever be much content, just a list of attestations. I'll add sources to the article. Should probably move back to Salman (deity) tho. fiveby(zero) 06:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To my (pretty limited) understanding of the Near East, the Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie is a bit like what Brill's New Pauly is for Greece. Radner's article in the RIA seemingly discusses this figure, and her 1998 work "Der Gott Salmānu („Šulmānu”) und seine Beziehung zur Stadt Dūr-Katlimmu" seems to be devoted to the matter. Seeing as this 1998 paper cites Becking's article in the DDD, they would all seem to be speaking about the same deity. Höfner is cited by Becking, and the two are clearly talking about the same figure. That would mean that, seemingly, we have around half a dozen sources, at least one of which is very detailed; so, there's enough for an article of some form.

As to Shulmanu, looking at the relevant part of the linked source (pp. 388–389), their use of Radner 1998 in discussing the figure means that the two are talking about the same deity, and so (assuming that Radner 1998 and Becking are indeed referring to the same figure) I think all of the sources here are discussing the same figure. If this is indeed the case, Shulmanu should probably be merged here (as I think "Salman" is the more common name, though "Salmanu" would perhaps be best?). – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radner cites Becking to say the connection is uncertain and unlikely in her opinion:

Whether Salmānu is to be identified with s/šlmn in Old South Arabic texts, šlmn in Ugaritic texts and (ršp)-šl/rmn in an Egyptian votive stele of the 20th and 21st dynasty[citing Becking] is uncertain and irrelevant to our discussion. However, I consider a connection to be rather unlikely.[also see fn 26 on "extremely speculative attempts to connect to Solomon and Jerusalem]

also:

Following up the aforementioned hypothesis of a pre-Islamic origin for these Arabic names, it makes sense to relate them to theophoric anthroponyms with this Semitic root. Two pertinent deities in the ancient Near Eastern pantheon are the Syro-Mesopotamian god Sulmän (cf. Albright1 932) and the Canaanite deity Salim. The deity S/Šalmän "is attested in Hatra, Palmyra and in North and South Arabian texts" (Becking 1 999 :758). Höfner & Merkel ( 1 965 : 466f.) portray him as a horseman ' s deity; the name form recalls Akkadian Sulmänu.
— Borg, Alexander (2001). "The Enigma of SLM Personal Names among the Bedouin in Sinai and the Negev". Mediterranean Language Review. 13: 175–193. JSTOR medilangrevi.13.2001.0175.

I think that's enough to say Cannanite Salim, Syro-Mesopotamian S/Šalmän and Akkadian S/Šalmänu should be clearly different topics. Still unsure about Šulmán. fiveby(zero) 18:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I did see that... I think my confusion arose from the fact that the Mesopotamian Šulmānu is the same figure as the Aramaic and Hebrew šlmn, just – in Radner's view, at least – not the Ugaritic šlmn (figures with the same name, both Northwest Semitic, but apparently separate...). Becking does also note that there are scholars who have seen the Ugaritic and Egyptian figures as being Shulman, though he only cites Albright for this view (who is presumably out of date), leaving it unclear as to who else (if anyone else) might have been of this opinion.

As to Šulmānu and Šalmānu, the latter is the Assyrian name for the former (that is, the two are the same figure). So there would seem to be two figures here – Šalmānu and S/Šalmän – who are (at least in Radner's view, and I think we can trust her) separate. Timm, I notice, is a little more agnostic on the matter, stating that the Egyptian name might refer to our deity here or to the Akkadian god, and saying that the former may have been widespread already by the Canaanite period. Whatever the case, it's probably sensible to keep the two pages separate, discussing the attestation of our deity here from the Middle Assyrian period through to the Roman/Byzantine era, and moving the page on Shulmanu to a better title; then the degree to which the two are separate can be discussed appropriately at each article. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in the European Union

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted a year ago; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in the European Union. Those reasons for deleting it still apply. Brian Kendig (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Europe. Brian Kendig (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am open to keeping this if a WP:NLIST-qualifying source can be found, but one isn't present and I can't easily find one. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article stood for over a decade. The European Union is a sui generis federative superstate and as such I find it reasonable to have a separate list for buildings on its territory, seeing it as a near parallel to List of tallest buildings in the United States. Therefore this isn't a redundancy with List of tallest buildings in Europe just as List of tallest buildings in the United States isn't redundant with List of tallest buildings in North America. A continent's a continent, and a polity's a polity. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, is your position that the situation has changed since the previous AfD or that the previous AfD got it wrong? TompaDompa (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the previous AfD got it wrong and not enough users got a chance to voice their opinion. The article has been on Wikipedia since 2007... It's no good to delete it with 4 votes just like that Chick Pea Corea (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination refers only to the reasons in the previous nomination which states "It's basically the same list as List of tallest buildings in Europe minus Russia and Turkey." That is a flawed rationale. The United Kingdom and Switzerland are also not present on this EU list, and none of the top 21 buildings on the Europe list are present on the EU list. So rather than the lists being "basically the same" they are completely different. As to notability, numerous sources (e.g books) refer to the "tallest building in the EU", referring to various specific buildings depending on publication date as the tallest changes over time and buildings move down the list.----Pontificalibus 15:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Do those sources cover the tallest buildings (plural) in the EU, e.g. by providing a top list or a timeline, or only the tallest building (singular)? TompaDompa (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:NLIST states "one accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group" which means it is not a requirement. It also states "lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes are often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability". This list clearly falls into that category.----Pontificalibus 08:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  It's not really discussing the buildings as a group if the sources are only stating which one is the very tallest, though, is it? That's why I'm asking. TompaDompa (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I didn't suggest it was, as I said there is no notability requirement that the buildings as a group should be discussed in sources. ----Pontificalibus 12:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  No, but it would strengthen the case for keeping the list. I take it then that they do not. TompaDompa (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of tallest buildings in Europe should cover all these buildings. This is merely a subset. The EU is not any sort of state, but merely a collection of states. So what exactly is its purpose? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yet the List of tallest buildings in Europe will limit comparison, because many cities in the EU simply have no buildings over 190m tall. (And to say that "the EU is merely a collection of states" denies its history and the fact that it is a well known entity) KatVanHuis (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The European Union is widely acknowledged as a sui generis federative superstate. Please educate yourself on this topic. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid patronising other editors. I'm fully aware what the EU is and is not. But given every country within it also has (or should have) its own list of tallest buildings, this list is pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And nothing should stand against making such a List of tallest buidlings in COUNTRY X page. This is a free encyclopedia. But as such, and note this page has been around since 2006/2007--so almost 20 years--a European Union-specific list has attracted specifically large attention and demand. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither longevity nor popularity in themselves mean that keeping a particular article around is a good idea. We have had articles that existed for a long time and attracted a lot of attention where the decision still ended up being getting rid of them in one way or another for one reason or another. TompaDompa (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so far, no cogent argument for essentially discriminating against the EU has been put forth. And I say this as an EU citizen. Yes! There is such a thing as an EU citizen! In fact all citizens of member states of the EU are EU citizens. Is there such a concept in ASEAN? :) Chick Pea Corea (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discriminating? I would on the contrary say that your position constitutes advocating for giving the EU special treatment—we have these lists for countries and continents, but the EU is neither. Would you equally be in favour of corresponding lists for the Commonwealth of Nations, NATO, African Union, United Nations, and so on? If not, why not? What is it that makes the European Union a relevant grouping in the context of tallest buildings? TompaDompa (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People are only citizens of the EU if they are citizens of an EU member nation. There is no separate EU citizenship. It is the nation state that is important, not the EU. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though not every EU member state is part of Shengen, there is a free market in the EU. Also, these EU citizens (while still having their national passport) have an 'EU citizen style' ID-card. These facts don't turn the EU into a superstate overnight, but it's a process that has started in the 1950s and is ongoing. Stating that the EU is merely a collection of states is denying an decade-long integration process. Not too be missed: the EU not only has a flag, a parliament, elections and laws but also an anthem. KatVanHuis (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list renders a completely different result from List of tallest buildings in Europe, exactly because it leaves out Russia, Turkey, the United Kingdom (and Switzerland). Which means that indeed Moskou, Istanbul and London don't contribute; creating a better comparison in the sense that more countries and cities qualify to be in this list. KatVanHuis (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question We could, conceivably, create similar lists for any number of groupings or countries (or whatever): List of tallest buildings in the Iberian peninsula, List of tallest buildings in Western Europe, List of tallest buildings in the Schengen area, and List of tallest buildings in European NATO member countries are just some of the possible lists we could create. Many of the possible scopes would overlap susbstantially with others. Given that the geographic scope of the list currently under discussion is a proper subset of the scope of list of tallest buildings in Europe (and a superset of List of tallest buildings in Germany and so on), what is the case for this particular scope having a separate list? Do sources comment on this particular geographic scope in the context of the tallest buildings specifically, or is there some other reason? TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So far there are: List of tallest buildings in the Balkans, List of tallest buildings in the Baltic states and List of tallest buildings in Scandinavia. KatVanHuis (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That does not answer the question. TompaDompa (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. Yet it shows that lists exist about entities other than countries or continents. I'm sure that (for instance) the Baltic states have strong ties; the integration of EU member states is not going to be less strong. KatVanHuis (talk) 07:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the relevance of this to listing the tallest buildings? That's the question that determines whether this article should exist. TompaDompa (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Skyscrapers are built and compete within specific consolidated markets and niches. These form specific groupings and these groupings are suitable for making lists based on them. Nobody in the European Union, for example, cares for the skyscrapers in Istanbul or Moscow. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In light of the recent spats between the EU and Donald Trump... There has been increased awareness in a pan-EU identity. This list is important. The EU is important. I'm saying this as a German. Please understand 2A00:F41:1C2F:8B5:841A:C93D:5297:3C73 (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the German IP (WP:NOTAVOTE) just above and per Pontificalibus's comments specifically "referring to various specific buildings" not "buildings as a group" as in, "...there is no notability requirement that the buildings as a group should be discussed in sources. This list is WP:original research and synthesis. It does not matter how "important" the European Union is, how big a "spat" they have with Trump, or the increasing pan-EU identity, without sources a keep !vote is only "but we like long, unsourced repetivelist "lists", which the many ones listed (including this one) is redundant, and unsourced, as groups. Even if Turkey joins the EU the policy states, Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. The fact that improvements are needed for Wikipedia lags far behind article creation. An Admin closer is supposed to consider all the !votes based on policy. It does not matter if all the individual buildings pass WP:NBUILDING or GNG. Ranker.com gives the top 25. Worldlistsmania.com lists 21, with an additional 14 in cities. The criteria for passing notability is what is published significatnely in reliable and independent sources. This article lists 90 buildings, with an additional unsourced 37 in the "Buildings by pinnacle height" subsection, a further 15 in the "Buildings under construction" subsection, and let's add 8 more in the "Timeline of the tallest buildings in the EU/EEC" subsection. Sources added on individual building do not count. skyscrapercenter.com is the closest list (one) and it not a reliable source. an It is advertising site that informs us we can join at the $10,000 level or the $500.00 level. If there is proper sourcing for the list, not one person has added it. As some form of full blown, unsourced, and lengthy aid to navigation: This is why we have categories. As for the lame argument that other stuff exists, an example of redundancy would be List of tallest buildings in North America and List of tallest buildings in Canada. Trump has not yet bought Canada, which is, according to sources, in North America-- Otr500 (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That other stuff exists is not a lame argument. If List of tallest buildings in the Balkans exists, it's only better that List of tallest buildings in the European Union exists. I wonder where is the "significant" coverage in secondary sources of a listing of tallest buildings in the Balkans. OR, sticking to the subject of lists, what is the "significant" coverage in secondary sources of a List of European countries by average wage? I'm against users making up stringent criteria out of thin air just to deny something the right to exist. This list is greatly informative and has been for the past almost two decades. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The question before us is not whether the European Union is the same as Europe, or even whether the two lists are similar. The question is whether WP:NLIST is met by having this list discussed as a group by independent reliable sources. Other considerations, such as current political alliances, are irrelevant and will be discarded when closing this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Curious that you relisted this but the previous AfD was not relisted after only 4 votes across 1 week. Chick Pea Corea (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have found several sources discussing the tallest EU buildings as a group but the notable thing is that there are so few tall buildings.[12][13][14] However there is no requirement for external discussion of the topic as a group - this is only one possible criterion. The relisting comment immediately above shows a slight misunderstanding of WP:NLIST which actually says One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. It does not say that this is the only accepted reason. Thincat (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Might also note explicitly that WP:Notability is neither necessary nor sufficient for a WP:Stand-alone list article to be appropriate. Non-notable topics may be appropriate for lists if they serve e.g. navigational purposes, and notable topics may be inappropriate for e.g. WP:TOOBROAD, WP:NOT, or WP:PAGEDECIDE reasons. TompaDompa (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soft support

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

The sources on the page do not give significant coverage to the concept of soft support, mentioning it in passing as part of another topic. The article as it stands is completely WP:OR, and searching online sources has also only revealed mentions of the topic in academic articles on other situations rather then significant coverage of the concept itself. Per WP:NOTADICTIONARY, deletion is due. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Swing vote: This is a common concept in polling, but it doesn't need a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 14:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with that outcome, but I would say merge without transferring anything over. The article as it stands is an OR essay.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that there is no content in the current article worth merging. Considering whether a redirect is appropriate, but not convinced Swing vote is the right target either. It doesn't always equate to swing voters. It can just be an indication of degree of support, and is also sometimes used to mean "apathy". Cielquiparle (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lonestar Shootout 2022

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

No notable pro wrestling event. Most sources are just WP:ROUTINE coverage, no coverage after the show to prove notability. Searching for sources, it doesn't look like the event had coverage after [15] HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Wrestling, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of Power

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

No notable pro wrestling event. Most sources are just WP:ROUTINE coverage, no coverage after the show to prove notability. Searching for sources, it doesn't look like the event had coverage after [16] HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Wrestling, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OceanVeil

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

This article is about a streaming service which started five days ago. I see no applied sources directly detailing, merely sources which make predictions. A reasonable BEFORE finds nothing in English which makes this any more notable than another web product. BusterD (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga, Business, Internet, and Japan. BusterD (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this service just launched and all the sources I can find are press releases or carbon copies of one. Probably WP:TOOSOON for now. I would say merge but I cannot think of a good target. Link20XX (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence C. Marsh

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

Fails WP:GNG & Wp:nprof Sabirkir (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Economics. Sabirkir (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two items with pretty good citation levels is below what I'm generally looking for in WP:NPROF. University-wide teaching awards do not contribute here. On the other hand, one book tends to fall under WP:BLP1E so far as WP:NAUTHOR goes; I did not anyway find reviews on a cursory search. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Indiana, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. For someone at this level of seniority, two well-cited publications (one a textbook) with the rest falling off steeply is below the bar for WP:PROF#C1, and nothing else in the article looks to contribute to notability. I did find one published review of the book, and hints that there might have been another by Garman in [17] (from which any book reviews are now missing), but even if I could find the second review it wouldn't be enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Rizvi

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

Draft on this subject was declined multiple times due to lack of notability. Since it was still under process of improvisation, editor has blanked the draft and moved the article into main space. Article doesn't meet BLP criteria. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Spirituality. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, Bihar, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tried to find some sources, but failed to do so. The subject does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NBIO as of now. Taabii (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I implore all of you to look at the sources provided already. Multiple established Canadian news articles (National Post, Toronto Sun, Toronto Star), JSTOR, and published books. BurimKazimi (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in the Balkans

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

Clearly WP:OR. The "Balkans" are not a clearly defined region, and no source covers any of this material as a concept. SportingFlyer T·C 10:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Geography. SportingFlyer T·C 10:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, arbitrary list as pointed above. It is also kind of pointless since even Istanbul has two buildings that are taller, on the Asian side. Lists of tallest buildings per country make more sense and they already exist. --Tone 10:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Various Wikipedia lists aren't covered by "sources" as RS generally do not concern themselves with lists or rankings of any kind, there are no "almanachs of lists" and atlases work differently, too. The author of the AfD is trying to uproot a significant part of Wikipedia by trying to uproot this particular page, and it's best if this was settled by a general Arbitration Committee to clarify Wikipedia policy on lists. See List of European countries by average wage.

Chick Pea Corea (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SWBC

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Article created by seemingly WP:SPA and has been tagged for notability issues for years.

From what I can see ignoring press releases, the remaining coverage doesn't meet WP:ORGCRITE. Routine stuff like hiring/firing news, reporting some acquisitions without further details , the company getting a rating or some non-notable award etc. There is some coverage on employment lawsuits but the focus is on the lawsuits rather than the company and per WP:ILLCON cannot be used to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 08:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and Texas. Imcdc Contact 08:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vibe coding

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

This article is based on only a handful of sources, primarily on a single tweet by the person who invented the term a month ago, or articles that regurgitate the tweet (like the Times of India article cited 5 times in the article). This is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Also, this article has been a target for blogspam promoters and advertising of LLM products. Of the seven references, two are unreliable (WP:RSPTWITTER and WP:FORBESCON), and there are doubts about the reliability of WP:TIMESOFINDIA. Kwpolska ^{(spam me/contributions)} 10:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Kwpolska ^{(spam me/contributions)} 10:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Absolutely keep. This has now appeared in the New York Times and is now listed by Merriam-Webster as a newly trending jargon: while a neologism, it is relevant for Wikipedia. Repeater-reclaim (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: per above. The Mirriam-Webster listing alone settles it. Barte (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Merge or Delete: While this is a great argument for why Vibe Coding should be included in wiktionary, I don't see why this wouldn't just be a section of Prompt engineering. I think the fact that it is such a novel concept that it doesn't have a well-documented name (Merriam-Webster is one of the least-respected major dictionaries, despite it being one of the most well-known) should tell us that it's not relevant enough to have an article. I'm sure this will be worth revisiting once this becomes a more significant phenomena, but by that point I anticipate it won't be called vibe coding. Metzger411 (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Sure, being a target for blogspammer and promo material should not be a reason for deletion, by that logic we might as well delete the article on search-engine optimization and phishing as well. Coming back to the more legitimate reasons for deletion, I see atleast six highly reliable sources, a NYT article (which imo is about as RS as it gets), a ArsTechnica article (which is a pretty reliable for tech articles), a Tech Crunch article (by a author who does not appear to have a conflict of interest with the product), a Gaurdian article, a Laptop Mag article, a 404 media article (which tbf I cannot access) and a Merriam Webster entry. This is above and beyond the kind of notability that is typically required for most tech articles.

In addition, regarding the claim of "only a single tweet", that unfortunately how tech trends go. To bring up a similar(ish) example, DOM clobbering, started out as a term used by a WP:SME in a blogpost before it started being used by almost everyone in browser security. I see this case as being similar, AI coding is not a new thing or a new concept, a notable WP:SME, (Karpathy) has called that not-new-thing "vibe coding" and the rest of the industry has run with it. That does not invalidate the fact that the concept is notable and a article is still needed about the topic regardless of what we want to call it. Sohom (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Keep. Four news articles directly focused on vibe coding written by staff journalists in sources listed as WP:GREL on WP:RSP: Ars Technica (x2, AI section), New York Times (Tech section of News, not op-ed), The Observer (News not Opinion). With these sources alone the article has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and thus satisfies WP:GNG. If the article has been a target of blogspam or advertising, that's not a reason for deletion as we can remove the offending material.AndyGordon (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Absolutely keep. Thankfully as of this writing it is not in the Urban Dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyFinkenstadt (talk • contribs) 16:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is nothing more than an advertisement. Tordek (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tordek ar Can you throw some pointers on how this article can be turned into less of a advertisement ? Sohom (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 209.216.106.86 (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean everything here is accurate, why is this being deleted? I found this on my own searching for the term after learning it earlier this morning and this article is in line with what I’d expect to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:8301:5ED0:101F:A4B3:4E9:9320 (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

I've read through the discussion and wanted to share why I think vibe coding deserves its own article rather than being merged into Prompt Engineering or deleted entirely.

Vibe Coding is a Programming Paradigm, Not Just a Prompting Technique

Prompt engineering is a broad concept that applies to many different fields, from AI art to AI-generated writing and coding. However, Wikipedia does not merge those topics into a single page just because they require structured prompts.

For example:

AI Art is its own article because it describes how AI-generated visuals differ from traditional digital art, even though it requires prompt engineering.
Vibe coding is the equivalent for AI-assisted programming—it’s about how developers interact with AI to generate, refine, and direct code, making it distinct from general prompt engineering.

The purpose of this article is not to explain how to structure AI prompts for coding—that would belong on the prompt engineering page. Instead, this article focuses on the paradigm shift in how code is being written with AI tools like LLMs.

The Term Has Notable Coverage and Usage

The term "vibe coding" was coined by Andrej Karpathy, a well-known AI researcher and former head of AI at Tesla, and has since been referenced in multiple media outlets. If the concern is that it is a new term, Wikipedia has covered many emerging trends and concepts over time, as long as they have reliable sources.

Wikipedia Documents Emerging Concepts, Not Just Established Ones

The argument that “this should wait until it becomes more mainstream” doesn’t align with how Wikipedia handles emerging phenomena. Many topics start as niche concepts before becoming widespread, and Wikipedia’s role is to document them as they develop rather than waiting for universal adoption. If the term evolves or changes, the article can be updated rather than deleted.

Merging Would Misplace the Topic

Placing vibe coding as a section under Prompt Engineering would be misleading because it is not about structuring prompts to maximize machine learning outputs in general—it is about a specific way of writing code with AI assistance. The current article explains this distinction well.

Conclusion

Vibe coding is a distinct AI-driven programming paradigm with a clear definition, notable sources, and growing discussion in the tech community. While it’s still evolving, that doesn’t mean it should be removed—Wikipedia has always documented emerging ideas as long as they have reliable references.

Keeping this article separate allows it to be expanded and refined over time, rather than being lost within a broader topic where it doesn’t fully fit. --AddisonKnox (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:AddisonKnox, please do not use LLMs to generate arguments as you have done here. Thanks, 06:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are my own words, but I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you!
--AddisonKnox (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC) AddisonKnox (talk) 06:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources clearly meet WP:GNG as Sohom Datta and AndyGordon have shown. Skyshiftertalk 06:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Break Night

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

Non-notable film per WP:NFF, lacking significant coverage by independent reliable sources BOVINEBOY2008 09:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've improved the article - have added other references. It was an early film from Joel Souza who is a filmmaker worth noting especially after the "Rust" tragedy". It had name actors, at leat in the leads. The film is commercially released on Amazon and on Tubi, I feel this makes it notable enough for an entry. Britfilm (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you added, only one might be considered significant coverage. The others only mention the film in passing. The film does not inherit notability because of the people involved. BOVINEBOY2008 10:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Atkinson

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

Biography that doesn't meet WP:GNG. Most references are either self published (via Erickson Coaching Int., paid advertising = BC Business) or lack WP:SIGCOV. Article may have also been self-published or originally edited by someone associated with the aforementioned company. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damodar Sharma

AfDs for this article:

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

On a WP:BEFORE search i didnt found any reliable source, fails WP:GNG as well as WP:SIGCOV. All references used in this biography are dead urls and being a vice chancellor doesn't inherit notability without coverage in the Secondary sources. Also he don’t have any prestigious award or high research career to gain notability. Fails WP:NACADEMIC TheSlumPanda (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could the nominator perhaps justify their claim that being vice chancellor (which here means head of an entire university) does not make the subject notable, and that secondary sources are required, when both of those claims would appear to be contradicted by WP:PROF#C6? C6 gives notability to heads of universities and does not require secondary sourcing for that notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment, @David. I appreciate the reference to WP:PROF#C6, which states that notability can be conferred to “The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.” While being a vice chancellor (head of a university) could theoretically qualify under this criterion, the guideline still operates within the broader context of Wikipedia’s notability policies, particularly WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to establish notability. WP:NPROF itself is not a standalone exemption from WP:GNG but rather a specific guideline that supplements it, and C6 is typically interpreted as applying when the role or institution is of such prominence that it inherently generates verifiable coverage.

In this case, my WP:BEFORE search did not uncover any reliable, independent secondary sources providing significant coverage of the subject’s tenure as vice chancellor or their broader academic career. The references in the article are dead URLs, and I couldn’t find alternative sources to substantiate notability. While the position of vice chancellor is significant, not every individual in such a role automatically meets the threshold for notability without evidence of broader impact or recognition (e.g., through awards, high-profile research, or media coverage), as outlined in WP:NACADEMIC and WP:SIGCOV. Without such evidence, I believe the article still fails to meet Wikipedia’s standards for inclusion.

I’d be happy to reconsider if reliable secondary sources can be provided to demonstrate the subject’s notability under C6 or any other criterion. Absent that, my nomination stands on the grounds of insufficient coverage and failure to meet WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. TheSlumPanda (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Manolache

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

While his death is tragic, he himself fails notability. Played only one game at the top level of Romanian football, while coverage is only of his death and career statistics. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 16:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Romania. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 16:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider Liga II as national level as well, it is fully professional. From my POV he was considered a full fledged professional player starting with the 2023-2024 season. Americanu197 (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He played one match for FCSB, the most popular Romanian team, in Liga I, the top-tier football league. The other games played in the second-tier which is also a professional one. Not a well-known young player, but still I think it is notable enough. Acid Mammoth (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As tragic as his death is (at this age), there is absolutely no reason having an entry of him in this encyclopedia; in other words, a guy died untimely. Sadly, but that is it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:C70C:F200:28FB:1DF2:8D5F:1671 (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Note NFOOTY is obsolete and has been for some years, so passing/failing totally irrelevant. Giant Snowman 09:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman Fixed. I didn't know if an equivalent to that existed so I went with it. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 16:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only argument is WP:SPORTSCRIT. Giant Snowman 18:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he has played in over 20 professional football games.GrimRob (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has sources and 20 game sin fully pro Romanian top division. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - theres so much coverage of him, this should definitely pass GNG. Article could do with some work to bring it up to standard though. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Considering the player's early death, he achieved sufficient notoriety within the period of time allotted to him, being called up by Romania national youth teams and played for FCSB, the country's main team. Svartner (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the sources would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Connect (insurance company)

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

No evidence of notability in the article, spam Polygnotus (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article really needs to be updated more for its current ownership rather than its previous Ameriprise ownership, and to mention more about how its used within AmFam (it's had a long time relationship with Costco for instance, which drives its members to use this provider specifically), and I don't forsee deletion here with the AmFam connection. Nathannah • 📮 23:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the sources in the article, the only ones with any pretensions to be independent sigcov are a profile of a a profile of a company exec in Response Magazine, a trad mag and Insurance Journal covering an acquisition. The name is unfortunately generic enough it's rather difficult to search for, even "Connect insurance" is overshaddowed by insurance connecting things and other similarly named platforms. There's an article on the sale of their ex-hq in the Green Bay Press Gazette, the local paper. WP:NCORP generally doesn't consider routine coverage of mergers to be sigcov, and the Response Magazine profile is focused on the person rather than the company, so this doesn't add up to notability. Rusalkii (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The number of names this insurer has had certainly makes for an adventurous search. Luckily, I've turned up all the needed articles including pretty regular SIGCOV in Green Bay. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 22:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with its parent, American Family Insurance. Seems on the edge notability wise and preferring an WP:ATD, especially per analysis by Rusalkii. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 18:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Women's Premier League (Cricket) awards

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 07:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 07:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is WPL version of this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_Premier_League_awards. I have made this article after 3 years of the event which is enough time for the notability of the tournament Rtyggu (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WPL on its own doesn't have WP:SIGCOV for this. Vestrian24Bio 08:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, IPL awards took 10 years to reach notability. Vestrian24Bio 08:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kotaro Kume

AfDs for this article:

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

Unquestionably fails WP:SPORTCRIT by a large margin. Never played a single league match above the fourth tier in Japan. Kept before for reasons that are no longer valid; for appearing in a single cup match - the guidelines that were applied no longer exist. As Kotaro Kume barely had any football career, there is no significant coverage either. The Japanese Wikipedia is filled with primary routine sources and a Gekisaka match report from an adolescents' game. Geschichte (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. – RossEvans19 (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage simply routine such as [18] from Sankei Sports Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 05:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guinea-Bissau (disambiguation)

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

All of the mentioned links refer to something about the same country. I don't think this is a valid disambiguation page, unlike Guinea (disambiguation) where it could be 3 different countries in Africa. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Africa. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't see any basis for this page. It just appears to be a list of related pages, none of which could be confused with the country. Greenman (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's established practice that there should be dab page entries for national sports teams. PamD 08:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Keep. I've overhauled the page, deleting inappropriate entries. National sports teams are valid (e.g. "Guinea-Bissau placed third in the tournament.") and there's also a university. I did a very similar, successful revamp of Zambia (disambiguation), which resulted in its Afd being withdrawn by its nominator. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Guinea-Bissau" is not ambiguous. The sports teams should be linked from the primary topic article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for informing me about this. Someone improved the article one hour ago; it is real that the article is in fact useless since we already have Guinea (disambiguation), so, yes, deleting or improving the page will be useful for Wikipedia. If you delete it, please make a redirect to the page Guinea (disambiguation). Thanks. QwertyZ34 (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guinea and Guinea-Bissau are entirely different subjects. Also, I have deleted many inappropriate entries lurking in Guinea (disambiguation), among them Guinea-Bissau, per WP:PTM, as well as absurdities such as Republic of West Papua (thrown in due to its association with Papua New Guinea, also an invalid entry) per WP:WHATTHEHECKWERETHEYTHINKING? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For some outlooks, the page is useful, its content is more—principaly about sport teams, and someone improved it recently. You can check it. QwertyZ34 (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PamD. Tamsier (talk) 10:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per PamD and Clarityfiend FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keat Hwa Centennial Celebrations

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

Article is written with WP:PROMO style and does not meet notability since it is a local school anniversary event. The article also contains the same contents in the main article section of the event. Syn73 (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Ong Kai Jin since he challenged the previous PROD. Syn73 (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Schools, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Caplen

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

Also not notable. He didn't win any medals, he didn't do something important. He's just an ordinary cricketer who played for a club. Also very stub like and I could not find any information googling his name. In fact I only found other people with the exact same name. Hence why I nominate this article for deletion. DotesConks (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DotesConks (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Just an ordinary cricketer who played for a club"? That's true of 90 percent of cricketers who have ever existed. Given that he played a first-class match for a County Championship team - albeit not a CC match - I wouldn't be surprised if there was more information available. "Medals" are not something that are often available in cricket.

Is Kent County Cricketers A to Z a sufficiently reliable source given that it was put together by the ACSH? Bobo . 06:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails notability. Vestrian24Bio 13:14, 16 March 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 keep‎. No policy cited, at most implied. No indication whatsoever of a WP:BEFORE. Snow also applies. Keeping this debate open will do no good and only waste Wikipedia resources. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holland Norway Lines

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

This is not notable. Its just a random ferry company. There really isn't anything unique or special to this ferry business. It being bankrupt further proves its not notable as it won't have any activity in the near future. DotesConks (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DotesConks (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, Germany, Netherlands, and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sttruggling to see what the issue is here, given the level of sourcing. When it comes to passenger transport companies, particularly on international routes, it's rare for them not to be notable in Wikipedia terms since they'll pretty much invariably be the topic of significant coverage both in the relevant specialist press and in the local media of the communities they serve. ‑ Iridescent 05:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no valid reason for deletion given. Most things in Wikipedia may appear "random" or inconsequential for given readers. Geschichte (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage in reliable sources. Tammbeck^talk 06:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if necessary, I can retrieve many Dutch reliable sources about this ferry. Dajasj (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not temporary. The bankruptcy is irrelevant. Cullen328 (talk) 17:10, 16 March 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.

Piero Ferracuti

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

Not notable at all. Former swimmer, only known for competing at the 1972 Olympics. He didn't even win, get a silver medal, or even a bronze one. The article is 2 sentences long. I'm not sure how this was accepted. DotesConks (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DotesConks (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and the creator is someone who was site banned by an ArbCom ruling over specifically creating stub articles that have less than 500 words in them. DotesConks (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and El Salvador. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to El Salvador at the 1972 Summer Olympics#Swimming. Geschichte (talk) 06:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, can't find any additional info on this guy- redirect is best. Jordano^5³ 13:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect but to Swimming at the 1972 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre breaststroke where there's a fuller record of his last place finish in a preliminary Heat 5 -- more than 11 seconds slower than the fastest times. A stand-alone article can't be supported here because there is a complete failure to satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5, which mandates: "All sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." (Emphasis added.) Cbl62 (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Sarah Flaum

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

Article has sources but not a single one treats the subject other than passing mentions of her as a member of a cast. A further search reveals only primary sources and a raft of social media entries. Fails both points of WP:NACTOR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This subject fails WP:GNG. A search for citations only reveals only social media pages and blogs. desmay (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/06/25/the-tale-a-wrenching-and-wise-story-about-sexual-abuse allows to verify the role/contribution to a notable production is significant; as do https://filmthreat.com/reviews/amfad-all-my-friends-are-dead/ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/arts/television/the-tale-hbo-review.html

Also see https://msmagazine.com/2022/05/24/abortion-add-to-cart-documentary-film-abortion-pills/ -Mushy Yank. 18:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional citations:

https://movieweb.com/lets-scare-julie-review/

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/jade-pettyjohn-jojo-siwa-all-my-friends-are-dead-1235495409/

https://movieweb.com/amfad-all-my-friends-are-dead-marcus-dunstan-horror-movie/

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/tale-review-1076440/

https://www.mmm-online.com/home/channel/documentary-explores-post-roe-v-wade-abortion-access/

https://variety.com/2018/film/reviews/the-tale-review-laura-dern-1202670927/ jaguar (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with 2-3 significant roles in notable productions; also probably meets WP:CREATIVE for her work on AMFAD. -Mushy Yank. 15:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Fails both points of WP:NACTOR." according to the nominator? What points? How does she fail them if her roles are significant and the productions, notable? -Mushy Yank. 15:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kota Suzuki

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

Stub with no evidence of notability. Player has made 4 substitute appearances at J3 League level. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Japan. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. – RossEvans19 (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Diar

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP1E. Previous AfD from 2014 only considered mentions in news coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and United States of America. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rural BC Party

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

Fails WP:ORG. Weak coverage in secondary sources consisting entirely of pre-election speculation from local papers and routine governmental records. Accordingly, most of the existing content consists merely of the party leadership's intentions, which they did not follow through on. The party fielded one candidate in one election and received only 0.04% of the popular vote (754 votes). There is no claim of long lasting notability. Yue🌙 01:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 01:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per nom. Minor short-term party with no significant, in-depth coverage. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BC Refederation Party

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

Fails WP:ORG. Defunct provincial party that achieved insignificant results in the elections it contested, never garnering more than a hundredth of a percent of the popular vote or one percent in any riding. A search through Google and provincial archives returned no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Of the three sources currently present in the article, one is an article that mentions a candidate in passing, one is a governmental list of registered parties that does not establish notability, and the other is a party press release published in a now defunct self-published news site. Yue🌙 01:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 01:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per nom. Minor short-term party with no significant, in-depth coverage. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Patriot Party

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

Fails WP:ORG. Defunct provincial party that achieved insignificant results in the elections it contested, never garnering more than a hundredth of a percent of the popular vote or half a percent in any riding. A search through Google and provincial archives returned no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The news sources given are routine coverage that neither focus on the party nor describe it in detail. All the other sources are standard governmental reports that do not establish the party's notability. Yue🌙 01:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (National Post, Vancouver Sun, Vernon Morning Star, Penticton Western News). The article is not "abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion" as the party is long defunct. I started the article, but have no connection to the party or its organizers, and have never lived in British Columbia. Ground Zero | t 01:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the automated notice template described the article as "abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion", but certainly that is not the argument I am making. I contend that the coverage in those papers is minor and not in-depth, a comparison being the creation of articles for every failed candidate mentioned in those same articles. Yue🌙 18:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 01:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per nom. Routine mentions of a party contesting an election are not in-depth, substantive coverage. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Solana

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

Fails GNG. This podcaster has gained some attention due to his friendship with Elon Musk, but I don't see him being notable.

[19] the sole RS in the article
[20] WP:BUSINESSINSIDER (this is BI tech, not the generally reliable BI culture)
[21] The information in this source is not independent from the subject, 90% of its content is just Solana talking about his own opinions and experiences (that is basically the definition of a WP:PRIMARY source).
[22][23] These sources only discuss the opinions Jack Dorsey voiced on Solana's podcast, they present no WP:SIGCOV of or say anything about Solana.
[24][25] Only brief mentions of Solana. Badbluebus (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Badbluebus (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete First, I've seen no evidence in this article or anywhere else that this person has ever met Elon Musk, let alone has a "friendship" with him except, I suppose, in an abstract way in which everyone from Silicon Valley is friends with everyone else? In any case, to evaluate notability:

→ The Atlantic: 27 paragraph biographical profile on the person that is the subject of this article from a generally reliable outlet [26]

→ Reason: 5 paragraph biographical profile on the person that is the subject of this article from a generally reliable outlet (these 5 paragraphs, in the publication's voice, appears prior to a longer, Q&A style interview)

→Business Insider: Mentioned by name 23 separate times from a no consensus outlet, with significant biographical information included, albeit not a "profile" in the form of the above two

→ Brief (1-2 sentence) mentions in the Los Angeles Times, Engadget, and Inc. inclusive of biographical tidbits (i.e. more than a drop quote)

This is basically like one mildly substantial piece of coverage away from tipping into being unambiguously notable. That said, if there's even the slightest moment of hesitation on a BLP we should, in my opinion, delete first and ask questions later. This may be a rare case of a person who is obviously a public figure -- someone who, to quote Lewis F. Powell Jr., has "thrust himself into the forefront of public controversies" -- but isn't notable for our purposes. Chetsford (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Came to Wikipedia to find information about Mr. Solana when he was quoted in a meme, and I did not recognize his name. If his article had not existed, Wikipedia would have failed to fulfill its purpose for me as an encyclopedia. KVWS 1640 EST, 1 March 2025. — Preceding undated comment added 21:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... despite that you've had a Wikipedia account for eighteen years? In any event, would you care to proffer a valid rationale under the notability guidelines to keep? Ravenswing 07:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Came to Wikipedia to learn about the owner of Pirate Wires. As the above stated, "If his article had not existed, Wikipedia would have failed to fulfill its purpose for me as an encyclopedia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:4781:FF5:7C08:30AF:2B78:B8D1 (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a remotely valid argument to keep this article. Badbluebus (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no basis for the Keep arguments but the Delete is Weak so I'm relisting this discussion for more consideration. If you are arguing to Keep this article, focus on reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would recommend deleting. I tried adding some more context, but at the end of the day I believe this page isn't warranted as the individual is quite insignificant. Ketlag (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being a CMO is just a fancy title for an employee that can be put on paperwork - knowing Elon Musk isnalso worthless as far as notability and i see absolutely jack about this person that would even meet the bare minimum standards for any guideline. CUPIDICAE❤️ 20:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a factual note -- registered as a delete !voter -- there's nothing in the article or, as far as I can tell any sources, that says this person knows Elon Musk. I think there's a valid reason to delete the article but, for purposes of this discussion, we should probably quit repeating the claim that he's friends with Elon Musk on the basis of a potentially erroneous claim made by the OP. Chetsford (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Creek (Missouri)

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

Seems like a small and unimportant stream. Refs appear to be minor features on a map. Nothing to suggest that the notability standards for inclusion have been met JMWt (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and Missouri. JMWt (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Beware of thinking that creeks are small and unimportant. Some can turn out to be overwhelmingly notable, with reams of documentation from county histories to water-supply papers. Never idly go by what it "seems like". Do the research.
In this case the research reveals that the totality of what is known about this creek comes, via Bernice Eugenia Johnson's 1933 thesis (hdl:10355/64422 doi:10.32469/10355/64422) and the Robert L. Ramsey Place Names Collection (which then went into the GNIS, which here is cited as though it is an independent source), from 1 sentence in the Bates county history (The History of Cass and Bates counties, Missouri at the HathiTrust Digital Library) and Johnson's primary research that added a detail.
The Atkeson county history has stuff that when read in full turns out to be about Mingo Township.
I have a modicum of experience doing creeks, and this creek I'd list as a tributary in South Grand River, which is an GNIS mess article that could do so much better given what sources are available.
Uncle G (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can you be clearer? Is that a !keep !delete or !merge? JMWt (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to South Grand River with the possibility of merging some verifiable information. The sources found by Uncle G are clearly enough to support a redirect, but probably not enough to justify a separate article. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apar Industries

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like stock prices, establishing subsidiaries, lubricant product launches, actor endorsement deals, etc., are merely routine coverage, regardless of where they are published WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject clearly passes WP:NCORP. The sources I found through a Google search [27], [28] and [29] provides significant coverage on the subject not just brief mentions or routine announcements. Taabii (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a Fortune 500 and NIFTY 500 company and highly likely to have coverage in secondary independent sources. In addition to the in-depth sources provided by the above editor, my searches yield analyst commentary[30], independent reporting[31][32][33], and critical reports by independent analysts[34][35]. These sources are more than enough to establish notability under WP:NCORP.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made the same error in evaluating a company solely based on analyst reports at Senco Gold's AFD.

In this 2, although the research analyst has no financial stake in the company, Apar Industries is part of Capitalmind's Premium Portfolios, as disclosed at the bottom of the article, which funded the report. Therefore, it cannot be considered entirely independent. In the other analyst report 3 & 9 - both points to same link, it is explicitly stated on the last page, in the third paragraph from the bottom, that IDBI Capital (the entity that commissioned the report) or its associates may have received compensation from the company in the past 12 months. Also, they may have managed or co-managed a public offering for the company within the same period. These disclosures indicate potential conflicts of interest, making the report as an invalid source. Charlie (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The other references are simply movements in stock prices and their coverages by brokers. 4, 5, 6 & 7 - both points to same link, and 8 Charlie (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on the sources provided by fellow editors, this is a major manufacturing company and definitely meets NCORP criteria. Baqi:) (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As of now, I agree with the nominator on the deletion unless better sources are provided that cover the company in-depth and independently, ideally meeting the WP:HEYMANN standard if possible. The references currently on the page, as well as those shared in this AFD, do not fully meet the guidelines. Charlie (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donya Dadrasan

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

Procedural nomination. This was tagged for prod, but because the tagger formatted the template incorrectly (they added the tag manually and thus didn't date it) it got left out of the prod queue and not deleted even after the seven-day prod period expired, but then somebody else came along later and backdated the prod template to the time of its original addition, thus generating a redlinked dated-maintenance category that no longer exists because everything else in it had already been deleted.
So, since the process mistakes left the page unaddressed, but I'm obviously not going to recreate an already-deleted dated-maintenance category just for this, it needs to come to a wider discussion.
The prod tagger's stated rationale, for the record, was "This article does not meet the guidelines for notability", and the article does seem to be staking her claim to notability on YouTube views and internet radio airplay rather than WP:NMUSIC criteria, but I leave it to consensus to decide, and have no opinion other than fixing a process error. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on touring, at least, Australia and Los Angeles, meeting factor 4 of WP:MUSICBIO: "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour...." Bearian (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article does not meet the criteria for notableness. The mere existence of a few authoritative articles is not a reason for an article to be on Wikipedia, because this person does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notableness and this article was created for promotional purposes. Araghsagi (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete:~~ Merely having a few articles in a few reputable news outlets is not a criterion for retention! This article does not meet the criteria for being noteworthy as a reader and was previously marked for deletion. Please remove it as soon as possible. Unfortunately, it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for being notable. Araghsagi (talk) 08:39, 9 March 2025 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Delete: I have a close relationship with this reader and I am aware that he paid someone to write this article for him. This article is for promotional purposes. Ali282872 (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The citations presented are OK and will pass notability guidelines. In particular the articles in WSJ, WSJ and Forbes India are the best ones. Yolandagonzales (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: The Wall St Journal and the Guardian devote about half the article each to this singer. With the Iranian sources, we probably have enough for a basic article. The very large following on instagram suggests she is well-known in her country. Oaktree b (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TaraSpan

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This article has been deleted multiple times here. Creator is a WP:SPA and we have had a lot of promotional edits where even the company itself tried to edit this page. Even now the article looks like a promotional piece. I see there a quite a few pieces from Ottawa Citizens which are basically PR pieces that are largely interviews with the founders and little independent in-depth content that would pass the WP:SIRS criteria. Imcdc Contact 08:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Technology, Computing, and Canada. Imcdc Contact 08:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sure the COI or previously deletion is relevant as those were six and 10 years ago respectively. However, the page clearly fails WP:NCORP. The few sources I did find are mainly about the founder and only mention the company so fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Nothing out there I can find that satisfies WP:ORGCRIT. Forgot to sign my original. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. doesn't have enough proper sources to establish notability. Darkm777 (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found a Globe and Mail article HERE but it's behind a paywall. The Google blurb says "Opinion: UNLOCKING INDIA'S PROMISE ...He and his partner Mike Manson have helped arrange several deals through their Taraspan Group, which is part of IT entrepreneur Terence Matthews ...". Maybe someone with a subscription could check it out. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article was not originally written from a neutral point of view, it was sent to WP:AFC and went through the vetting process there, so it should be judged by its own merits and not because of its initial unacceptable state. The Ottawa Citizen is a respected daily newspaper, publishing since at least 1851. I tried to look at those news articles, but only one of the links still works. I found a second one in a paywalled archive. I'm the one who added them as references, and although I don't remember what they said, I assure you that I wouldn't have included them unless each one was (1) written by a reporter, and (2) contained some information in the words of that reporter, that supported facts in the Wikipedia article. Imcdc, if you were able to read the other three articles, can you please link to where you found the text?—Anne Delong (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will post the archive and working links for viewers to see and decide if WP:NCORP is supported.
Globe and Mail (1 and 2) Both are mainly about Raj Narula first and have a significant portions quoting him which hurts independence. Removing these there is not much in-depth about Taraspan itself. Seems like a PR piece.
Ottawa Citizen (1 and 2) Focus is on co-founders. Also again there are independence concerns. (3 and 4) Brief mention of company - Imcdc Contact 13:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:59, 16 March 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 keep, withdrawn‎ – looks like there's a decent amount of coverage under more than one name, which is probably why I couldn't find much :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Container Bob

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

Looks like a WP:BLP1E fail to me; this was a fairly short news story in 2001, which is made mildly more interesting by some post-9/11 hysteria but still doesn't get any lasting or other notability. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Egypt, Italy, and Canada. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. WP:BLP1E C1-2 are clearly met, but I'm concerned about C3 as it seems like his role in the incident was substantial and well-documented. There was some additional coverage in 2002[36][37] and 2006[38]. He's also mentioned in some government reports (both US and Canada) and scholarly articles[39] about maritime / shipping container security, and in an article (not in-depth coverage of him) in 2014.[40] Zzz plant (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all the sourcing says container boy. This seems to be maybe notable (maybe convert into an event article?) is there a reason we're calling this Bob or is this a 13 year uncorrected typo? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh! Maybe that's what made source searching difficult, but I'm still not convinced by the sources above to meet the even higher NEVENT bar. The first three are opinion columns, government reports usually don't confer notability, a mention might but i don't see any new facts, and shallow coverage doesn't confer notability. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like, if this is "substantial and well-documented" coverage, most flash-in-the-pan news stories would pass BLP1E. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why I did not vote as I didn't check myself for notability. Just saying "maybe". Just noting the typo. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PARAKANYAA, you speak French to a certain extent, right? Because of the Canadian connection I've found vague references to a few French-language sources. I've only been able to get to two so far, because my computer is going through a bit of an anglophone phase, but do you reckon there's anything usable in these? [41][42] The second one is about a novel by Nicolas Dickner, so obviously unusable for facts, but might point to the event still being referenced by popular media over ten years later. Depending on what it says, of course.

Also sorry, theleekycauldron, but I've added some more modern/academic sources that I think are okay, so I'm making you do the source analysis all over again. I'm kind of with you that I'm not completely convinced this should be a standalone article, but given all the passing mentions over ten years on, the lack of a good merge target, and the fact that this information does seem useful to have somewhere... I'm torn. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Probably enough to keep the article, I can pull up a few newspaper articles [43]. I'm not sure what happened lately, but the individual got enough coverage at the time for notability. It's not simply about finding a "guy in a box", there was some discussion over security at the ports that allowed the even to happen. This shows some discussion around the event, not just the event itself. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 16 March 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.

Yellow Rat Bastard

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

This article has basically been ghostwritten by a person representing Yellow Rat Bastard. The business is not very notable (very few people know of its existence, even for the people who walk by Broadway every day) and from the image, it seems like a local mom and pop shop, which is clearly not notable. The creator of the page is a user account User:Shadowlurker112 which has made 3 edits, and all of them to this article. Clearly a promotional account. In recent times, an editor User:YRBNewYork has also edited the article and was blocked because of failing to disclose COI and their username was promotional. I fail to see how this is notable in anyway, plus on top of the fact that promotional accounts have ghostwritten the entire article leads me to nominating this for deletion. DotesConks (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. DotesConks (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 02:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doing a quick search yields very few related results for the location, just seems to be a shop who wants a Wikipedia page. i2n 2z 12:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checca sauce

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

First of all, the title of the page is incorrect because "checca sauce" seems to be unknown in Italy, and in fact the article immediately refers to the pasta dish, namely pasta alla checca (https://www.cucchiaio.it/ricetta/pasta-checca/). Coming to the point, we had previously deleted the pages pasta all'ortolana and bomba calabrese because they weren't encyclopedic; I propose to do the same thing with this article. JacktheBrown (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A cooking style for a dish doesn't mean a particular combination of ingredients is a sauce. Reywas92^Talk 14:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere, somewhen, someone named Francesca is fuming at not being properly credited. (I assume that it's not one of the other possible meanings.) But, from having had a look around, no-one seems to know who; or gives an explanation. (Or provide firm confirmation that it's a Francesca.) There simply is no sourcing available on this. It is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vincenzo da Via Anfossi

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

The page doesn't appear to be encyclopedic. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Cataract Patient First to Get Latest Lens Implant Technology in SWFL". WINK News.
^ "Frantz Offers New VERION System". Naples Daily News.
^ "Ophthalmology Management Feature on Dr. Frantz".
^ "Cataract Patient First to Get Latest Lens Implant Technology in SWFL". WINK News.
^ "Frantz Offers New VERION System". Naples Daily News.
^ "Ophthalmology Management Feature on Dr. Frantz".

[1] "Cataract Patient First to Get Latest Lens Implant Technology in SWFL". WINK News.

[2] "Frantz Offers New VERION System". Naples Daily News.

[3] "Ophthalmology Management Feature on Dr. Frantz".

[4] "Cataract Patient First to Get Latest Lens Implant Technology in SWFL". WINK News.

[5] "Frantz Offers New VERION System". Naples Daily News.

[6] "Ophthalmology Management Feature on Dr. Frantz".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]