Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 08	January 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

MaNaDr

AfDs for this article:

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

A previous article was deleted at AFD a year ago. The present article was created a few months ago, covering recent action against the firm by the Singapore Ministry of Health. Searches find this Straits Times item concerning other providers' reactions to that situations (and perhaps Healthcare_in_Singapore#Private_healthcare should be extended to cover telehealth). However WP:CORP indicates that regulatory actions and their coverage are not in themselves indicative of notability of a particular firm, so it seems appropriate to bring this to AFD as it doesn't seem there is enough in-depth coverage to overturn the previous deletion consensus. AllyD (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and Singapore. AllyD (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Agree with the nominator. Gauravs 51 (talk)

Hoseyn Bazar (25°36′ N 61°03′ E), Chabahar

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

Previously PROD'd article. Mass-created by Carlossuarez46 based on the GEONet Names Server (which is not a reliable source for this kind of information per the RSN discussion) and the Iranian census (which collects information for locations that are often not villages but include shops/farms/factories/bridges/pumps etc.). In this case, the location may well have been a shop based simply on the name.

Local addresses (e.g., the local mosque) declare the location in the title of the article to be Peti Han Baza, or alternatively Chukat-e Bala. The existence of two other locations supposedly called "Hoseyn Bazar" in the same rural district within a few miles of this location further raises doubt as to whether this place really exists as a village, and additionally renders this place totally unverifiable. FOARP (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dimanche v. Brown

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

Non-notable, WP:ROTM legal case that is principally created to add credence to Moliere Dimanche (see also: WP:Articles for deletion/Moliere Dimanche and User talk:NovembersHeartbeat)Spiralwidget (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moliere Dimanche

Thank you for initiating this discussion. I would like to address some concerns raised in the nomination statement:

1. Vandalism: This user Spiralwidget has repeatedly vandalized this topic. In his nomination for deletion of the page for Moe Dimanche he states that Dimanche is "prominent" in the case law, and then states that he doesn't know much about "American legal stuff", but projects himself as an expert on legal case notability here. This is vandalism, and in American jurisprudence, Dimanche v. Brown has been cited in 178 new opinions be United States judges. That means this case law helped our highest courts establish new case law, and will continue to do so forever. Virtually every prominent legal publication cites the law for setting precedent, and the 178 citations is just from judges rendering opinions. That doesn't count the many more times litigants have used the citation to protect there positions in our district courts, our appellate courts, and in the Supreme Court of the United States. This is an actual law, and has been one since 2015.

I welcome further discussion on how to improve the article and ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies. I hope my contributions to Wikipedia demonstrate how serious I am about expanding knowledge in the areas of law and civil rights. I hope to help those looking to navigating complex legal theories and civil rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NovembersHeartbeat (talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If virtually every prominent legal publication cites the law for setting precedent, can you provide a list of some of them? Ca ^{talk to me!} 21:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Police, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I am happy to be proven wrong. I am not well-versed in the laws, so it is possible that I am missing some major source that I could look for coverage. However, a search on Google Scholar, Google, Google News, and Google Books did not return any usable source(that is, reliable and independent). Currently, this article has an WP:original research problem since the topic has zero secondary analysis by reliable sources. This article is also heavily WP:REFBOMBed with primary documents of the lawsuit. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel like my essay WP:NPOV deletion applies here, since lawsuits are naturally a contentious topic. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The use of a level-3 fake header (same as the real header of the entire AfD) is confusing. Reduced to level 4. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian Visual Arts Network

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

Subject fails GNG and NCORP for not having significant coverage from independent reliable sources and not merely mentioned for verification. Sources on the article are not reliable. Cassiopeia talk 09:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Albania. Cassiopeia talk 09:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Organizations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ekam Bawa

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

Music video launch announcements and YouTube videos are not sufficient to merit inclusion. Junbeesh (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Punjab. Junbeesh (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buff Technologies

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Partnership announcements and clear reprints of press releases do not notability make. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Israel. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ale Conners of London

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

Fails WP:LISTN as not having received attention as a group. An individual appointment sometimes gets a mention in a different source (though most of these aren't independent), but that's about it. Fram (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to look for additional mentions and references on this subject. I look forward to receiving the results of the deletion discussion, and will of course be happy with whatever decision the group comes to. Tippylegend (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as WP:INDISCRIMINATE, there's no encyclopedic information here that isn't on the article for Ale conner. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 09:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. As stated, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Luthor

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

I know this article is GA, but everything are cited as primary sources. Did WP:BEFORE, but found zero WP:SIGCOV. A source for ex like this [1] isn't. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Man from Krypton, p. 85, has a relevant though brief characterization of Lionel Luthor, and likewise with The Smallville Chronicles. "Enter the Aleph: Superhero Worlds and Hypertime Realities" interestingly has a comparison to Samson of all people. Most importantly, does anyone have access to "The Role of Parents in the Processing of Adolescent Trauma in Smallville"? That sounds pretty promising. Daranios (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, here. This paper does have a lot of plot summary on Lionel Luthor, but also evaluation of his role, although mostly in relation to Lex Luthor (Smallville). Daranios (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Lex Luthor (Smallville) or/and List of Smallville characters#Lionel Luthor. While the great majority of material here is referenced to primary sources, it is not everything. There's IGN, DVD Verdict (where I don't know if it's reliable) and the Saturn Award. More importantly, the secondary sources listed above (result of a non-exhaustive WP:BEFORE search) together can provide enough commentary to fullfill WP:WHYN and WP:NOTPLOT. Much of the commentary is related to the relationship with Lex Luthor, so I have no objection against a merge. Daranios (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lex Luthor (Smallville) or/and List of Smallville characters#Lionel Luthor. I would default to the list, with any additional detail covered at Lex Luthor. I agree that most of the coverage is in relation to Lex Luthor. There isn't enough WP:SIGCOV for a meaningful article but there is still something to WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge the Smallville information to List of Smallville characters#Lionel Luthor and the comics version to List of DC Comics characters: L in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I trust Daranios judgement here. But take away the GA status: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Lionel Luthor/1. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Nagy

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

Non notable radio host - no sigcov Golikom (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Golikom (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thajuddin

AfDs for this article:

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

Article on certain topic "Thauddin" about the conversion of a Hindu king to Islam - Only found in conspiracy theories and low quality news reports by journalists. Usually supported by substandard books and research papers (all them by Muslim authors)

{{Db-hoax}} JamesMdp (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. JamesMdp (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Islam, Hinduism, Oman, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything noteworthy (or indeed much at all) in Google Books. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At best a hoax. Sources cited are poor in quality, this is itself sourced from Wikipedia. Garuda ^Talk! 13:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Garudam. This page is unverifiable. Bearian (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That tag should have been on the article, but no harm done. Bearian (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlikely historical. Agletarang (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article relies on substandard references that fail to meet WP:RS and WP:V standards. For example:
The cited works by Y. Friedmann and O. Loth are largely speculative and don't provide direct evidence for the subject's historicity. Katz’s "Who Are the Jews of India?" and Prange’s "Monsoon Islam" discuss tangentially related topics, not corroborating the claimed events. Sources like "Islamqa.info" and the claimed link to the "splitting of the moon" belong to religious interpretations, not historical fact. The narrative seems to be rooted in a WP:FRINGE, lacking corroboration in mainstream academic research. The cited “Qissat Shakarwati Farmad” is itself unverifiable beyond dubious origins and has been critiqued for being anecdotal. The connection to Cheraman Perumal converting to Islam is unsupported by high-quality sources, reinforcing this as a likely WP:HOAX. Per NOT a repository of myths and notability guidelines, this article fails en-wiki standards. Nxcrypto Message 06:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, this article was created directly in the mainspace by DonParlo, who is now globally blocked. This further raises doubts about this hoax article legitimacy. Nxcrypto Message 06:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete:~~ Previous editors of the article deliberately included these references to give it an appearance of credibility. However, the content of the article does not align with the cited sources. JamesMdp (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote, your nomination is considered your "vote". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Keep: Based on the basic criteria WP:BASIC, people are considered notable if they have received significant coverage in more than one publication, and are considered worthy of being retained. Historical and religious biography [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9], this name is slightly less popular, if this bio is renamed to the well-known Cheraman Perumal, more Confucianism can be avoided. Cheraman Juma Mosque, which is part of the first Muslim mosque in India, established in 629 CE, is named after him in history ~~ Spworld2 (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to see an evaluation of sources brought into the discussion before closing this discuasion. And from what I can see, this is not a "hoax" but falls into the realm of legendary. We have plenty of articles on legendary figures from different cultures so that shouldn't be a pivotal reason to delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Fresh

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted as promo in 2020, recreated by a 57-edits account in 2022. Fails WP:NCORP.

[10] Fails WP:ORGIND, this source's entire content is the CEO talking about her own company.
[11] Fails ORGIND, most of the article is a regurgitation of a press release by a company that partnered with Teddy Fresh
[12] Clearly a promotional ad, complete with price tags for the products and an unreasonably large collection of pictures of them
[13] WP:ORGTRIV, routine announcement of products, the original commentary on the company is a negligibly small part of the article
[14] Routine announcement, looks like a press release
[15] This is just an advertisement, complete with price tags and the pictures of the products.
[16] Barely passes WP:ORGDEPTH, since a great part of this article is about the CEO talking about her own company
[17] Another trivial announcement of products. The parts of this article that aren't the CEO talking about her own company are simple descriptions of the company's latest released products. There's not enough original, in-depth commentary on the company. Badbluebus (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Fashion. Badbluebus (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Internet. Heart ^(talk) 06:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vallabhaneni Maheedhar

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

A WP:BEFORE search yields results from databases, LinkedIn, Facebook, Amazon, and other unreliable sources. The subject fails to meet under WP:NACTOR and WP:FILMMAKER. Also, there is no indication of meeting WP:SIGCOV. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political houseparty

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

One of a set of unsourced stubs explaining political things that need no explanation. This could likely be expanded by padding, but as it is I'm dubious anyone even uses this name. Mangoe (talk) 05:13, 9 January 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 January 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are a handful of sources that mention this being a thing, but I couldn't find anything to suggest it merits an article. No indication that this is a widespread or widely covered practice. MCE89 (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political buzzword

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

One of a set of unsourced stubs explaining political things that need no explanation. This could likely be expanded by padding, but as it is it comes across as some amateur's WP:OR. Mangoe (talk) 05:15, 9 January 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 January 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Is the article's definition even correct? It seems like the article is describing political slogans or soundbites rather than buzzwords - I can't find anything that uses the term "political buzzword" in the way this does. Doesn't have anything useful to merge, and I don't see any real point redirecting to slogan, buzzword or sound bite as it doesn't seem like a likely search term. To the extent that this is talking about something notable I think it can be adequately covered in one of those three articles MCE89 (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Internal enemy

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

A WP:DICTDEF of a very commonly used epithet. I can see a merge to political repression but simply padding the article with more examples where the attack has been made is not actual improvement. Mangoe (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources cited show it's a consistent concept with the potential for expansion into a non-stub article, not a "dictdef" or "epithet" as claimed. (t · c) buidhe 05:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although, to be fair, this source suggests that a merge to fifth column could be considered, that's not a matter for AfD. (t · c) buidhe 05:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slurge

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

A bit of poli sci jargon which seemingly hasn't caught on. I did see a few book hits, mostly recent enough to where they could depend on us, but far and away most hits were proper names. Mangoe (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Appears to be fringe coinage. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary anyways. Yue🌙 09:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Pennington (model)

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't pass GNG - apart from one puff article seems only to have inherited notability for marriage to Shaun Cassidy Golikom (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Women. Heart ^(talk) 05:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sexuality and gender, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-electric vehicle tactics in the US and Canada

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

A crank-rdden POV fork. Qwirkle (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Canada, and United States of America. Heart ^(talk) 05:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hila Klein

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

I don't see enough reliable sources that talk about Klein in depth. The few sources in this article that are not gossipy or clearly unreliable are either centered on the youtube channels she co-hosted with her husband (H3 Podcast, H3H3productions) or the fashion company she founded (Teddy Fresh). Although the podcasts and the company could be notable, she is not. It is possible that this page could be redirected to any of those articles. My source eval is the following:

[18] Fails WP:INDEPENDENT and SIGCOV, most of this article is Klein talking about her own company, there's not enough independent coverage of Klein herself
[19] Arguably reliable, but the source is more about Teddy Fresh than Hila Klein. It doesn't support the need for an article about her separate from Teddy Fresh.
[20] WP:SPORTSKEEDA
[21] Routine WP:DEXERTO article that doesn't discuss Klein in depth. Badbluebus (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Fashion, Internet, Israel, United States of America, and California. Badbluebus (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nande Mabala

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

Sockpuppets and likely LOUTSOCK IPs are repeatedly eliminating a redirect, so instead of edit warring I am seeking an AfD consensus to establish a redirect to Miss South Africa 2023. The subject is not a pageant winner, and any notability she has appears to be WP:BLP1E for her placing in that pageant; the coverage that exists is WP:ROUTINE and there is no WP:SIGCOV for a WP:GNG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and South Africa. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Why redirect in the first place? Edit warring and sock are not ground for deletion. Deal with the users and IP adequately. I also don't think WP:BLP1E applies here. The subject is a model, just like how a musician can be a one hit wonder. She is clearly notable and discussed in multiple RS, meaning she pass WP:GNG. A simple Google search is enough, I'm not gonna try to reference the whole internet here. dxneo (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you supply the specific sources you believe constitute SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources to pass GNG? I didn’t find any in my BEFORE, just mentions of her pageant career that didn’t go into substantial depth. P.S. Editor disagreements over a redirect are indeed a valid reason for an AfD discussion per WP:BLAR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I think I'll be back here on the 30th. Can't perform a full search rn, but she did headline multiple RS. Ciao! dxneo (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have seen a lot of secondary reliable source with a significant coverage. I'm wondering how you nominated this article for deletion because what didn't tally with I knew on Wikipedia. [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] and [27] are enough to establish notability, as such it pass GNG [[Special:Contributions 102.91.92.110 (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC) — 102.91.92.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Nope, your first, second, and fourth sources are tabloid coverage, and per WP:SBST, tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. The third source is a Q&A interview and thus a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. The fifth source is not an journalistically independent publication; it's a local booster/hotel room magazine. The sixth source, while not a Q&A, is composed almost entirely of quotes from Mabala and appears to based solely on an interview with her and is thus also a primary source. We're not at the point of WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG yet. By the way, since this is the first time this IP address has edited Wikipedia, can I ask what accounts you've previously used? Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to discuss this "interview is a primary source" thing, because that's where information normally comes from. If another publication quotes that interview, no one would say it's "primary". If the interview was published by a reliable source, then it's most definitely reliable. dxneo (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not on my laptop so not going to type a full reply, but between this recent long discussion thread and WP:INTERVIEWS, there’s a robust consensus that merely being interviewed does not make one notable and that any content that is entirely or almost entirely dependent on an interview with the subject is not independent. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'll comment on the notability of the subject in the next few days. dxneo (talk) 09:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the sources mentioned above, there are feature articles about her in the Sowetan, Dispatch, Worcester Standard, Star, and IOL. Plus coverage in the Sunday Times. Sure, a lot of the content is from interviews with Mabala, but these are by no means straight Q&A and are about as hard-hitting as you can expect of journalism about beauty pageants. I doubt that many models would pass WP:GNG if only investigative journalism qualified as secondary sources for the purposes of establishing notability. Jlalbion (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of not appearing to bludgeon the discussion I’ll refrain from further comments in this discussion, other than to say that I reviewed these additional sources in my BEFORE and did not find them to pass the bar of independence (as single source interviews) or of SIGCOV (as tabloid coverage). I don’t edit much on beauty pageants and perhaps there is a local consensus at AfD on sourcing for pageant participants that I’m unaware of, so I’ll let the community decide without further input. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is an apparent consensus to Keep, there are valid questions on whether or not sources provided supply SIGCOV. I think editors familiar with content creation know the limits of accepting interviews as secondary sources which depend on the content of the interview and if there is any independent content aside from the Q&A occurring.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although some of the sources are questionable, there is enough coverage in mainstream news to meet notability. Rublamb (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She was fairly discussed here, her career history and all. Here is her acedemic record from the University of Western Cape. Headlined multiple RS as mentioned before. Enough to support keep. dxneo (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a WP:BLP that needs real WP:SECONDARY sources to establish notability. Routine coverage, interview and profiles don't make. Recent consensus on interviews states that it doesn't establish notability, even if there is a lot of them, and not somebody like this person doing the PR round. There is not 1 secondary source here. Not 1. Its all routine junk. Lastly she hasn't even won anything and the two references that were recently have the same exact information. They are not in-depth. And the reference provided above "https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/celeb-news/breaking-who-is-miss-sa-south-africa-second-runner-up-nande-mabala-natasha-joubert-bryoni-govender-18-august-2023/" is taken from social media making it completely unreliable. It states in WP:BLP "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.". Where is that here. scope_creep^Talk 08:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We still have a fundamental disagreement among participating editors on whether or not the sources provided supply adequate coverage of this article subject. At this point, a source review might help determine which side is on more solid ground.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MÁV Személyszállítási Zrt.

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

No sources found. Also fails WP:NCORP. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 04:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Heart ^(talk) 04:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy Tab E 9.6

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

Fails WP:GNG, I don't see why this should be its own page. Nothing generally notable outside of its launch. Madeline1805 (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mangal

AfDs for this article:

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

The article lacks reliable sources to verify the information presented. Additionally, the battle appears to have limited historical significance and is not widely covered in notable sources, making the article's notability questionable. Article clearly failing WP:GNG and WP:V . Mr.Hanes Talk 04:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Pakistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Sources were removed previously that have been restored. RangersRus (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @RangersRus, but I have removed the Gazetteers Sources as they are considered unreliable as per WP:RAJ. Mr.Hanes Talk 12:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main article Afghan–Sikh Wars or to Hari Singh Nalwa (Battle of Mangal (1821)) as this article lack content to expand. QEnigma talk 11:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
unsupported- This article modestly suffers through various Edit warring and socks account WP:Block intercession whereas this article show endless graded aspects of its predated sourcing which can be readdressed through militant campaign of Hari Singh Nalwa, Runthetown (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet. I'll just add that this article has been sent to AFD THREE times in less than a year so however this discussion closes, I hope that we can put a ban on future nominations for at least 6-12 months.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tengku Baharuddin

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

I do not see that this younger son of a Malay sultan passes WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. He does not hold any office that would be presumptively notable, and I don't see any WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources (in the article or in my WP:BEFORE search) that would pass the general notability guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Malaysia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wordhunt

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I wrote on the talk page while you were writing this, there is a lot of coverage of the Wordhunt to be found in Proquest. I added several reliable sources (Guardian, Scotsman, Chronicle of Higher Education), and the Boston Globe was already cited in the article, but there are also articles in Proquest in The Times (several), The Observer, Belfast Telegraph, Derby Evening Telegraph, Daily Post and even The Hindustan Times and Pittsburgh Post - Gazette. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Television, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If the reason is solely "not notable" then I have to disagree. There's definitely some room for improvement on the article, but if there's enough sources about it, I see no reason to not keep it. It seems like WP:DANNO is happening here, I'd rather be convinced this isn't notable instead of just being told it isn't. Chew^{(V • T • E)} 21:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Selective) Merge with Balderdash and Piffle. We've definitely got some good coverage of this, but given that the two topics are so closely intertwined, I don't see why they need separate articles. The article as-is could use some trimming...we don't need the whole list of words for sure, but both can certainly fit comfortably together. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting given the argument to Merge. I'll just say that this is a very poor deletion rationale which isn't an argument at all or and doesn't demonstrate that a BEFORE has been done.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Mallows

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

Fictional military unit, very poorly referenced. My BEFORE shows some mention in passing although nothing jumps out as having WP:SIGCOV. If this is notable, it probably needs a WP:TNT treatment, seeing as what we have here is WP:FANCRUFTY unsourced WP:OR failing WP:V. Not sure abut good redirect target - perhaps The Adventure of the Crooked Man? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Military, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capital One–Discover merger

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

This topic fails WP:GNG because it fails the second part of the test: whether it should be covered in a standalone page. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and that's all this article is. The event is ongoing and it is unknown if it will be completed, so it does not (yet) have a lasting effect under WP:NEVENT. The coverage of the merger has to date been WP:ROUTINE, another indication that this fails NEVENT. A redirect to Capital_One#Discover_Financial_Services is appropriate but was contested by the page creator so I am seeking consensus for a redirect via AfD. (Should the topic warrant a standalone page in the future, it can be restored and expanded.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Business. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per nom. Discover Financial#History and Capital One#Discover Financial Services are the right places for this until and unless there is sufficient content to warrant a split. A standalone page is not yet warranted. Reywas92^Talk 03:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This deal was announced almost one year ago. Since then, there has been continued major coverage. This article just must be updated and expanded. Thriley (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Etrasco

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this American lacrosse player. JTtheOG (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Massachusetts, and New York. JTtheOG (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

H.A.M.M.E.R.

AfDs for this article:

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

Kept in AfD 10 years ago, so prod-ineligible - but at PROD level, sigh. Pure plot summary with a few mentions of comics etc. this organization appeared in, no analysis/reception. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. We can consider redirecting this per ATD-R to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Mupo

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of this American lacrosse player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The most I found was this, which isn't much at all. There's also some quotes from her here. JTtheOG (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. JTtheOG (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksiy Zenchenko

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

Like others from this same team, I can't find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV on this player. The article is WP:REFBOMBed, but nothing meets the standards of WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

30 North Arlington-Kearny-Newark

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

Bus route with no indication of notability. I would normally suggest a redirect to List of NJ Transit bus routes (1–99), but I don't know how plausible of a search term this is. JTtheOG (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Jersey. JTtheOG (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested; redirects are cheap. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and Dclemens1971. Bus routes are not inherently notable, especially not when the only source to which their articles are cited is the transportation authority's own schedule. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of NJ Transit bus routes (1–99) Djflem (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

24 Elizabeth/Jersey Gardens-Orange/Erie Loop

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

Bus route with no indication of notability. I would normally suggest a redirect to List of NJ Transit bus routes (1–99), but I don't know how plausible of a search term this is. JTtheOG (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Jersey. JTtheOG (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested; redirects are cheap. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of NJ Transit bus routes (1–99) Djflem (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13 Nutley/Belleville/Clifton-Irvington Terminal/Valley Fair

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

I would normally suggest a redirect to List of NJ Transit bus routes (1–99), but I don't know how plausible of a search term this is. JTtheOG (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Jersey. JTtheOG (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested; redirects are cheap. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and Dclemens1971. Bus routes are not inherently notable, especially not when the only source to which their articles are cited is the transportation authority's own schedule. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Djflem (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kyoya Yamada

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

Kyoya Yamada has recently retired (https://www.fagiano-okayama.com/news/202412281600/), and so with four J2 appearances, unfortunately fails GNG RossEvans19 (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Might be coverage in JP sources, but I can't find any coverage we can use, not much of anything really. Does not meet notability. The one link used now in the article isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see Asahi Shimbun, Mainichi Shimbun and probably the bunch of coverage from Sanyo Shimbun and I suggest a translation of ja:山田恭也 (I don't know football). Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 06:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Cumbria

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

Only links to two pages which only cover one town and one city in the whole county. This is unnecessary and the same information is widely available in categories. Thirdman (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. Heart ^(talk) 05:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Viktoria Vasilieva

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she has participated in many high-level regional competitions, and has earned metals. Article needs more sources which can be easily done. Marleeashton (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All medals were junior-level, none of which qualify as notable per WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the intention of these guidelines were to be overly prescriptive. I see you have nominated many gymnast articles, while they don't meet the 'more likely to receive coverage' point they should be judged individually on their merits, not mass removed because they're less likely to receive coverage. Marleeashton (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We keep biographical articles (or not) based on whether they meet set standards for notability, not out of our personal, idiosyncratic notions as to what's important or not. Participation standards have been deprecated sports-wide, not even medalling at the Olympics is a guarantee of meeting standards, and if you believe there are valid sources that meet the GNG and provide significant coverage to the subject, proffer them. Ravenswing 06:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find any independent WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. The corresponding Russian article is also devoid of quality sources. Let'srun (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that GNG is met and no sources yet provided by keep voter.Canary757 (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. These: [28] (Match TV), [29], [30] (both Sportbox.ru / Match TV), [31], [32] (both Sport Express), [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41] (all Sports.ru) are more than enough.
I actually spent 10 minutes on this. But you can search like this →→→ https://yandex.ru/search/?text=Виктория+Васильева if you want to find more. Find her profiles on big sports sites and then look in the "News" section or search by tag. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are all trivial coverage, barely a paragraph. First one talks about her partner's illness. Rest are unimpressive. I don't think we have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A note to the above voters. If you can't do a proper search, don't vote. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A note to you; if you cannot acquaint yourself with the appropriate guidelines governing notability, don't vote at AfD. Ravenswing 06:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A classic case of citation bombing above in utter ignorance of the provisions of the GNG and SIGCOV. The former holds "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The latter holds ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Interviews of the subject do not count. Namedrops ("Figure skater Roman Zaporozhets, who competes in pairs skating with Victoria Vasilyeva, told Match TV that the pair withdrew from the Grand Prix stage in Kazan due to his illness"), fleeting mentions and routine match coverage do not count. Lists of stats do not count. Ravenswing 06:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. Sources have been brought into this discussion yesterday and an assessment would be helpful rather than a quick dismissal. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've checked the first six sources above and the last one, there are trivial mentions, barely more than a paragraph each, simply confirming she's participated in xyz event. Oaktree b (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked each and every one of them as well; I just didn't bulletpoint each one. Ravenswing 06:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found for this skater; a junior-level bronze medalist would barely make notability, IF we had extensive sourcing. With only what amount to blog posts, three lines of coverage and the like, we don't have the coverage needed. Oaktree b (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Putra Adhiguna

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

I am unable to find any independent coverage of this BLP. The 15 sources cited in the article are author listings, biography listings, interviews, articles written by the subject, alumni listings, coverage from events, seminars, conferences, summits and more interviews. It is unclear what makes the subject notable or what their contributions are which could be used to assess whether any SNG is met. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Finance, Economics, Technology, Asia, and Indonesia. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No WP:SIGCOV in the sources. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editor, this below is planned to be add to outline his contribution to the energy transition field. Look forward to your advice whether this will be sufficiently relevant. Thank you.

Putra has made notable contributions to research on Southeast Asia's energy transition. His research expertise spans various aspects of the energy transition, including in outlining the key enablers and challenges for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology application (1), critical transition minerals sourcing and related industrial developments (2), as well as key factors to drive Indonesia’s energy transition (3)(4).

His perspectives on the energy sector have been regularly featured in major news outlets in the region, covering wide-ranging topics in energy such as gas investments in Southeast Asia (5), Singapore’s clean energy imports (6), and regional green energy cooperation in ASEAN (7).

His research works have also been cited in publications such as the International Energy Agency (IEA) report on Enhancing Indonesia’s Power System (8), RAND Corporation report on China’s Role in the Global Development of Critical Resources (9) and an article in Communications Earth & Environment journal (A part of Nature journal) titled The viability of co-firing biomass waste to mitigate coal plant emissions in Indonesia (10)

He was part of the team of international peer reviewers for the IEA report titled An Energy Sector Roadmap to Net Zero Emissions in Indonesia (11) and his insights and contribution has been acknowledged in International Institute for Sustainable Development publication titled Boom and Bust: The fiscal implications of fossil fuel phase-out in six large emerging economies (12)

(1) https://ieefa.org/resources/carbon-capture-southeast-asian-market-context-sorting-out-myths-and-realities-cost

(2) https://energyshift.institute/work/0-4-of-global-battery-production-capacity-indonesias-battery-and-ev-developments-are-far-out-of-step-with-its-nickel-exploitation-promise/

(3) https://ieefa.org/resources/indonesia-wants-go-greener-pln-stuck-excess-capacity-coal-fired-power-plants

(4) https://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Indonesias-Biomass-Cofiring-Bet_February-2021.pdf

(5) https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/gas-investments-in-se-asia-undermine-green-energy-climate-push-report

(6) https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/st-explains-s-pore-announced-more-ambitious-clean-import-targets-what-would-this-mean-for-our-energy-transition

(7) https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/583121

(8) https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/247b5328-2cd7-4fbb-a800-dd1c71f6e562/EnhancingIndonesiasPowerSystem.pdf

(9) https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA2000/RRA2096-1/RAND_RRA2096-1.pdf

(10) https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01588-0

(11) https://www.iea.org/reports/an-energy-sector-roadmap-to-net-zero-emissions-in-indonesia

(12) https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2022-07/fossil-fuel-phase-out-briics-economies.pdf

**Viewpoints and research

*Carbon Capture and Storage*

Putra’s view on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology is that it will not be easily deployed in cost-sensitive regions such as Southeast Asia (13). However, more affluent countries, such as Singapore or Japan, might be interested in exporting their carbon dioxide emissions to countries that can provide storage locations (14). Nevertheless, he advocated that such export activities will require stringent standards with clear long term liability agreements (15) (16).

(13) https://ieefa.org/articles/widespread-adoption-carbon-capture-utilization-and-storage-technologies-south-east-asia

(14) https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-japan-sign-agreement-to-collaborate-on-carbon-capture-and-storage-tech

(15) https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Japan-cannot-make-CO2-disappear-just-by-exporting-it

(16) https://www.thejakartapost.com/business/2024/05/27/new-rules-set-to-kick-start-japanese-co2-exports-to-ri.html

*Critical Minerals for the Energy Transition*

His research on critical minerals primarily focused on nickel development and the battery and electric vehicle industry (2). He has advocated for more ambitious industrial developments to further enhance the role of producing countries in the battery and electric vehicle value chain (2).

Putra has also raised significant concerns about the low social and environmental standards of nickel development in Indonesia, including its implications for indigenous populations (17) and the potential use of forced labour (18). He has urged the government to conduct transparent assessments and implement improvements in these areas, as he outlined in his interviews with BBC News and Voice of America (17) (18).

(17) https://www.bbc.com/indonesia/articles/c1e5x2k7kp8o

(18) https://www.voaindonesia.com/a/amerika-serikat-masukkan-nikel-indonesia-ke-daftar-pekerja-paksa-/7816453.html

His expertise on critical minerals in Southeast Asia is evident from his interviews featured in prominent international publications such as The New York Times (19), Barron’s (20), NPR (21), The Straits Times (22), Channel News Asia (23) and Bloomberg news (24)

(19) https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/business/indonesia-nickel-china-us.html

(20) https://www.barrons.com/news/indonesia-bets-on-se-asia-s-first-battery-plant-to-become-ev-hub-8328fe72

(21) https://www.npr.org/2024/02/13/1231061492/a-leading-candidate-for-president-in-indonesia-wants-the-country-to-increase-coa

(22) https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/indonesia-set-to-become-ev-battery-battleground

(23) https://www.channelnewsasia.com/watch/indonesias-industrialisation-has-fallen-short-its-regional-peers-analyst-4122381

(24) https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/international/2024/10/17/indonesias-fixer-in-chief-bows-out-as-prabowo-takes-the-helm/

*Trump election, China and Southeast Asia’s Energy Transition*

With the recent election of Trump as President of the United States, Putra has shared his views on its impact toward the Southeast Asia’s energy transition in Asia's prominent news outlet, Nikkei Asia. According to him, Trump's withdrawal from international climate agreements will have a notable impact on climate diplomacy in Southeast Asia's energy transition, although its effect on energy investments in the region will likely remain limited. (25)

In separate publications featured in China's major news outlets, Caixin and China Daily, he argued that Trump's rise to power would likely create a larger role for China in Southeast Asia's energy transition (26) (27). Major Southeast Asian countries, such as Indonesia, stand to benefit significantly from increased engagement with China due to its capacity for rapid investment deployment. However, raising the standards of Chinese overseas investments remains essential. (27) Prior, he has also commented on Xinhua News how China’s coal provinces and their rapid industrial development toward clean energy can also provide inspirations for coal reliant economies to transition to greener industries (28)

(25) https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/How-Trump-might-shake-up-Southeast-Asia-s-clean-energy-transition

(26) https://www.caixinglobal.com/2024-12-06/commentary-will-a-trump-presidency-give-china-a-bigger-role-in-southeast-asias-energy-transition-102265317.html

(27) https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202412/10/WS67579329a310f1265a1d1fb0.html

(28) https://english.news.cn/20240917/b74ec11d54c244978a5b866ba286716f/c.html

*Indonesia’s energy Transition*

Putra has also been a notable voice in outlining the key enablers and challenges in Indonesia’s energy transition. This includes highlighting the considerations for the use of biomass to generate electricity on Reuters (29) and International Monetary Fund Finance & Development Magazine (30). He has also shared his views on Indonesia’s role in the climate and energy transition in international events held by the University of Maryland (31) in College Park and United States - Indonesia Society in Washington DC (32).

His views on the use of biomass and nuclear energy in Indonesia has been featured in Channel News Asia’s feature documentary titled “Power to the People – Bioenergy” (33) and “Insight - Will Indonesia Go Nuclear” (34).

His work while at IEEFA covering the plan for the use of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) for Indonesia’s power generation (35) has been cited by Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission report on its Corruption Vulnerability Assessment (Kajian kerentanan korupsi) (36).

He has also advocated the need to transition to greener energy in the islands of the archipelago, as outlined in an Associated Press article (34). Putra has also emphasized the need to optimize international assistance such as the $20 billion funding by U.S. and its allies (35) and anticipate energy consumption growth and emissions in new sectors such as the data centres (36).

(29) https://www.reuters.com/article/business/energy/feature-betting-on-bamboo-indonesian-villages-struggle-to-source-safe-green-po-idUSL8N2LU4I6/

(30) https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2022/12/country-case-indonesia-solar-future-jacques

(31) https://cgs.umd.edu/events/indonesias-climate-future-land-energy-and-governance-open-forum-discussion

(32) https://usindo.org/feature/special-open-forum-discussion-on-indonesias-climate-future-land-energy-and-governance/

(33) https://www.channelnewsasia.com/watch/power-people/bioenergy-4439271

(34) https://www.channelnewsasia.com/watch/insight-2022-2023/will-indonesia-go-nuclear-3029031

(35) https://www.kpk.go.id/id/publikasi-data/kajian/kerentanan-korupsi-program-gasifikasi-pembangkit-listrik-pt-pln

(36) https://apnews.com/article/business-indonesia-g-20-summit-bali-climate-and-environment-a73dcbcb60d9a42904f7d81025b5feac

(37) https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-allies-announce-20-billion-package-to-wean-indonesia-off-coal-11668503675

(38) https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/economics/article/3235499/dark-clouds-ahead-indonesias-emissions-surge-asias-need-data-centres-singapores-offshore-push 222.124.125.10 (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be nice to see at least a partial review of these newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think they might meet criteria 7 of WP:NPROF. NPROF applies to anyone involved in scholarly research, so I think Adhiguna's roles at policy research think tanks qualify them to be considered under NPROF. Criteria 7 is that the subject must have "had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity", and it notes that being "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert" may qualify. Adhiguna is clearly very widely quoted as an expert on the Indonesian energy transition, including in publications like the NYT, BBC and WSJ. They also seem to have had a significant impact outside of academia by using their scholarly research to inform Indonesian policymaking, including contributing to some influential reports like the IEA one and being a regular columnist on the energy transition for one of Indonesia's largest newspapers. I agree that they definitely don't meet WP:GNG, but I think they make a reasonable case under criteria 7 of WP:NPROF as an influential subject-matter expert. MCE89 (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please list their 'substantial impact' and explain how they are 'very widely quoted as an expert' after you have actually read the articles from the NYT, BBC and WSJ? Also, please clarify how you determined that these quotes have meaningful impact? I believe they are merely routine/run of the mill statements. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did read the articles. I'm not sure what you mean by routine/run of the mill statements - they are pretty clearly being quoted by each of these publications in their capacity as a subject matter expert, which is exactly what is described under 7(a) of WP:NPROF. As I said, I'm not claiming that any of these articles constitute SIGCOV or that the subject meets WP:GNG, but as someone engaged in "scholarly research" all that needs to be established is that they meet one of the seven criteria under NPROF. I think the most applicable criteria is that they have "had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity", which may be satisfied if they are "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area" (note "quoted" - I'm aware that they are not a major focus of any of the articles, but they are certainly widely quoted as an expert on the Indonesian energy transition). So the reason I think they meet criteria 7 is that (a) they have been widely quoted in prominent international media outlets, including the WSJ, NYT, BBC, Reuters etc., as an expert in their area of research, satisfying 7(a) of NPROF, and (b) they have clearly influenced Indonesian policymaking in their area of research, as demonstrated by being cited or consulted on various government projects and publications. MCE89 (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, TLDR: you actually don’t have anything meaningful or substantial to show from the NYT, BBC or WSJ articles? Instead, you’ve decided to explain NPROF#7 to me. Fascinating, but I’m still waiting for evidence of this so called ‘significant impact’.

Let's take the NYT example: Putra Adhiguna says “One way or another, Europe and the U.S. will need Indonesia nickel" and "They should be coming to this country figuring out how they can do it better." This is just a routine interview byte as he was part of Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.. They almost always comment on everything and that’s why this falls under routine coverage.

The entire article reads like a collection of his viewpoints and arguments - Putra Adhiguna emphasized this, Putra Adhiguna shared his views on that, Putra Adhiguna argued this, Putra Adhiguna commented on that - just a series of views, emphasizes, comments and arguments. Yet, there’s nothing about the work he has done or his achievements, because there aren’t any. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe tone it down a bit? My point was just that all of those articles are very standard examples of what it looks like when an expert in a particular field is quoted in the mainstream press about their area of expertise, which is exactly what 7(a) describes. Yes, it's a routine interview bite, but that's what "quoted in conventional media as an academic expert" is describing. I'm not claiming that any of these sources are SIGCOV of Putra Adhiguna, but that's not what's required - NPROF specifically says that researchers may be "notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources". It seems like you're applying the GNG standard and asking for secondary SIGCOV of the work he has done and his achievements, but I don't think NPROF requires that at all. What I'm saying is that the fact that he is a public-facing expert who frequently comments in the international press, writes for major Indonesian newspapers and seems to have some measurable influence on policymaking processes in Indonesia is enough to show that he is "notably influential in the world of ideas" per NPROF, even without the secondary SIGCOV that would be needed to meet GNG.

We're in agreement about the absence of SIGCOV though and I don't think this is particularly productive, so let's maybe leave it there? MCE89 (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without concrete examples of specific policies shaped by his work or recognition within academic or policy circles, it’s hard to see how his routine media mentions meet the bar set by NPROF. It seems more like he was quoted in conventional media as a person working for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis rather than as an academic expert. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't evaluate the wall of text and citation dump, but I can see very clearly that the subject badly fails WP:PROF: he lacks any engineering, teaching, education, or scientific degree – as well as an earned doctorate of any kind. He has never published or even written any peer-reviewed articles. He is a basically a talking head. For that, he should be evaluated using WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many resources are not related to the subject of this biography article. Even more do not discuss this subject. More citations/resources needed that discuss this subject significantly. I'm agree with the nominator talk about this article. Ariandi Lie ^{Let's talk} 04:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully with some more time some further ability to consider the sources presented can be made.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: In addition to the quotes above, appears to be a semi-regular columnist in the Jakarta Post on energy issues. I think we can have a !weak keep for the PROF as explained aobve. Oaktree b (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sorry, here [42] and [43]. Oaktree b (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Hiraizumi

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

Non-notable American actress. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was a few sentences here. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, California, and Hawaii. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imakuni?

AfDs for this article:

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

Very few sources exist actually covering this guy. The article's in a weird spot where he's technically a mascot/fictional character yet also a real person. Coverage on him is sparse regardless. In English there's very little on him in Books, News, and Scholar in the way of SIGCOV, and even in Japanese it's primarily just announcements of collaborations or promotional articles and the like. The current article is primarily subsisting on trivial mentions and primary sources, with little in the way of actual notability. A potential AtD could potentially be a merge to List of Pokémon characters, but I'm admittedly unsure given his unique status. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fictional elements, and Video games. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Anime and manga, Advertising, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and/or merge to said list. He seems to be extremely niche and GNG-failing, based on the sources present. Heavy case of WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Irving Scott

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

Non-notable magician. No sigcov provided for this story-like article to distinguish it from a hoax. Jdcooper (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Magic, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are just random archived message board postings. Unable to find any coverage. Marleeashton (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are a number of book sources referenced in the article that need assessment and this entry here links to several books and listing of 2 magazine articles about him, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd welcome more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL quarterbacks by teams beaten

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

Does not pass WP:NLIST from my perspective, and comes across as WP:Fancruft/trivia. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and American football. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article literally copies off one source to present the information, and this is usually only a headline superlative rather than something really followed closely. Nate • (chatter) 17:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes NLIST. [44][45][46][47][48] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a copy of a single source, and is arbitrarily cut off at "all teams but four". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarityfiend's merge proposal also sounds very reasonable to me, so I'd be cool with either. No opinion on how much the list should be trimmed if we ultimately go with merge. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if renamed List of NFL quarterbacks who have beaten every team in the league and trimmed. (Also remove the criterion "beaten every team he faced at least once", which is just made up.) It satisfies NLIST, but only for every team, not every team but n (n=1, 2, 3, etc.). This is a rare achievement which requires a QB to go to another team and then beat his former team. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively merge to List of NFL individual records#Quarterback wins, but just the half dozen QBs who have done it all. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I'd support a trim and merge. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't believe the list should be trimmed to just those six players. The sources discuss a lot more players than just those six. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to trim list, it should include the six who beat all teams plus the qbs who stayed with one team throughout their career and beat all other teams (Bradshaw, Elway, ect.) Spparky (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the sources that support this addition? I don't see any. (The closest I can find is that Mahomes is the youngest to beat all 31 other teams, and that's a different kettle of fish.) Otherwise, this is just an unwarranted stretching of the boundary. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge to List of NFL individual records#Quarterback wins. Specifically, I would add a bullet for those retired QBs who have beaten all but one team if they spent their entire career with one team. This would remove Ken Stabler, Alex Smith and Kerry Collins because they played for multiple teams. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kerry Collins is listed in three of the sources above though. Here is an excerpt: "Oddly, one other quarterback, Kerry Collins, beat 31 teams, but the team Collins never beat, the Dolphins, wasn’t one of the teams he played for. Collins actually started against the Dolphins four times while playing for four different teams, but lost all four games." ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it more notable that a QB spent their entire career with one team and beat every other team in the league (31/31) than being traded and still not beating every team in the league (31/32). Collins wouldn't be on the list of "all but one" if he had never been traded since he never beat the Dolphins. In the end, that will be a decision to be made by the closing administrator. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may find it more WP:interesting, but that's not what Wikipedia is based on. Sources! Where are your sources? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If sources were the only criterion, then we would have hundreds of times more articles than we do now. I was featured in my hometown newspapers covering my Eagle Scout project, so should I have a Wikipedia article? The answer is no, because I do not meet WP:GNG despite the fact I can provide sources. At what point do we stop adding names to these lists? Your argument, to me, seems more along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT than putting forward any policy-based or guideline-based argument. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your example, an article in a local paper about a local person/event, does not qualifiy as a Wikipedial source. You are confusing verifiability with notability. [Pet peeve alert: Why do you and others keep typing "::*:", "*::", etc., when the asterisk does nothing unless it is at the end?] Clarityfiend (talk) 09:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarityfiend: You asked about my sources, so I provided a hypothetical to show that I can find sources for someone not notable (I specifically said I do not meet GNG). In reference to the pet peeve, I'm not typing the colons and asterisks. That is Wikipedia's "Reply" function probably just adding a colon to the end of whatever indenting text already exists. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports writers have written about QBs with wins against all teams as a group (I'm stretching just to include the two who beat the 28 then-existing teams), as demonstrated by WikiOriginal-9. None have written about all but one, with or without weird qualifiers/conditions, as a group (sorry, Collins). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has enough discussion in secondary sources to allow us to have an article on it. The issues above all seem like editing issues, not notability issues. SportingFlyer T·C 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge per Clarityfiend. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FANCRUFT WP:NOTSTATS. Excessive niche statscruft sourced by a single outlet. Ajf773 (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing currently in the article is an editing issue, there are plenty of different sources above. SportingFlyer T·C 04:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Four of five of WikiOriginal-9's sources above discuss these "32-win" QBs as a group, so NLIST is satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there is only one source currently in the article, and it's a database website, but this is clearly notable. The editing just needs to be cleaned up. Other sources include [49] [50] SportingFlyer T·C 04:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The souces provided in this discussion, particularly the CBS Sports, NBC Sports, and Sporting News articles each cover the list as a grouping for WP:NLIST to be met. Let'srun (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The strongest arguments thus far are for a merger or a trimmed version, but I'm simply not seeing consensus on any of the options. Given the specific options proposed, it would be useful for future !voters to engage with them specifically.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I frankly don't think "Quarterback beat all teams but three" (or four) merits mention in an encyclopedia at all. I would merge everything above two into quarterback records. However, given the size of List of NFL individual records, and the key role played by quarterbacks in the game, I would split out a separate List of NFL quarterback records. BD2412 T 20:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is an arbitrary cutoff not supported by the sportswriters. Guys who are at 31 are mentioned, if at all, merely in passing and not as a group. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: It is certainly less arbitrary than the current situation, with up to four teams listed. For reasons set forth in the discussion above, it makes sense to list those who have only failed to defeat one team because that will include those who spent their entire career with the one team that was therefore not defeated. It is no burden on the encyclopedia to list those who have defeated all but two teams just the same. BD2412 T 18:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my view, the fact that there is a sports news article every time someone newly meets one of this article's criteria isn't enough to establish WP:NLIST; they all just fall under WP:ROUTINE. Obscure statistics frequently appear in ROUTINE references; we can still take an intellectual assessment of the arbitrariness or cruftiness of the list and decide that it's not worthy of encyclopedic record. Aspirex (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE is a guideline connected to events, which doesn't apply here. Let'srun (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine." Coverage about statistical marks being broken in the moment can very much be interpreted as falling under sports scores routine. Aspirex (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding, right? How can quarterback win records ever be construed as sports scores? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to make sure to note this is clearly, clearly not WP:ROUTINE. It's a list of statistics which have been covered by many different outlets. SportingFlyer T·C 01:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I still do not see a consensus here. My instinct is to go with the Merge suggestion but there are quite a few editors arguing strongly for a Keep so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Amongst the differing views for this AfD, I see the rationale for deletion and keep being solid. However, that happens with WP:TRIVIA. This is trivia that may or may not cross the GNG threshold. I do not think the merge target really works since the record for Most NFL teams defeated at least once, career is already there, but at the same time deleting for the sake of cruft or lack of GNG may work. That being said, perhaps a no consensus may be what is determined. I would rather this article be trimmed, and written to fit some other obscure stats that probably have GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, there are enough articles on it from a variety of different sources to make it eligible for a stand-alone article. If there needs to be a merge or editorial discussion, that can happen elsewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 00:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite clearly trivia from my perspective and the one possible notable portion is someone having beaten all teams but the one they played for. Sites often mention trivia, it doesn't make it notable to just be a fun fact. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per TRIVIA, A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and unselective collection of facts or examples. This is clearly not the case here, it's clearly a very discriminate statistic. SportingFlyer T·C 03:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that is only an opinion. I do not wish to vote on this one simply due to how this article is written and open-ended the sources are. Conyo14 (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Regardless of any Wiki policy or writing, this is pretty clearly just a "fun fact" / trivia. It's not something anybody actually cares about or notes in a serious capacity. It's not an accolade that's added to player record or info sections. It's just something that you go "huh, neat" to any move on from. You know why? Because wins are a team stat, not something specific to quarterbacks. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, opinions are not policy. SportingFlyer T·C 19:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could see keeping the article as "List of NFL quarterbacks who defeated every team" and trimming it to those quarterbacks and possibly those who defeated all but one (since if you played only for one team you obviously couldn't beat that team and I have no doubt that there would be sources that such quaterbacks defeated every other team). But how is something like "quarterbacks who defeated all but four teams" anything but OR? Rlendog (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's an editorial argument, not a notability argument. I wouldn't have any problem with trimming the list. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why we would need a whole article for two stats when it could go in the List of NFL individual records. Conyo14 (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this qualifies for a third relisting. There seems to be a weak consensus against keeping this as a standalone article (despite some editors presenting legitimate evidence for notability) but definitely not a consensus for deletion and no consensus on how to handle some degree of merging. Closing this as no consensus seems like closing against consensus and so perhaps a third relist will provide clarity on a merge/rename/plan.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Democrates

For a concise explanation of the case for deletion of this article, see User:Twozenhauer's response to User:Liz below.

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

I humbly submit that this article may safely be either taken down, merged, or changed to a redirect. Its principal claim to notability, I believe, is the occasional misattribution of Democritus’s sayings or likeness to one Democrates.

With regard to the former, according to our article on Democritus, Diels and Kranz attribute these sayings to Democritus, and this article repeats this attribution. As for the likeness, it can hardly be denied that the bust in the picture is stamped “Democrates,” and, indeed, the Wedgwood Museum’s website seems to list the very piece here under that name; that Museum’s website is hardly informative. Now, the Metropolitan Museum of Art has a similar piece also stamped “Democrates” but clearly catalogued as “Democritus.” Did someone at the Wedgwood company repeatedly make the same mistake? This hardly seems unlikely to me, but what say my fellow editors?

I do confess that the likeness is unlike some of those we have for Democritus, as that in the Villa of the Papyri, but it is hardly unlike his representation in numerous other portraits. Indeed, the painting by Coypel, loath as we may be to accept the authenticity of so modern a vision, seems based on an old tradition; a cursory search will, I believe, at worst, reveal to anyone conflicting traditions of his appearance with, nonetheless, a bias towards that seen in the Wedgwood bust. A worker at the company might have repeatedly made the mistake of labeling the likeness "Democrates", but did Coypel, who predates it, mistake with "Démocrite"? And many other artists in the tradition of the “laughing” or “smiling philosopher”?

That he was the founder of the basic concepts of democracy is obvious nonsense. (Among other considerations, were he a contemporary of Apollonius of Tyana, he would have lived centuries after the heyday of Athenian democracy!)

Mind you, Democrates is not an invalid Greek name. There is Democrates of Aphidna, and it is also attested to in, e.g., this article about Euripides, this work of the theologian Sepulveda, and, as I gather, a genus of beetles. Indeed, Livy apparently states that a Democrates led the Tarentines at the Battle of Sapriportis, but, although the name on that article links to the page about the supposed philosopher, their biographies could hardly agree. Furthermore, the name appears on the list of Druze prophets on this page, but I can find no citations to that effect. (This last, in particular, might make me suspect a hoax, though I make no such formal accusation here!)

Even if the Democrates article gave dates significantly after the laughing philosopher, they would not account for the difference in dates between the Tarentine commander and the Druze prophet, and, even if they did, they would not account for the article’s lack of biographical detail, unless a military command and posthumous religious veneration do not qualify as notable!

But, forgive me: I understand that those links need not really enter into the argument; they were, no doubt, added in good faith, or, at least, the one from the Tarentine commander to the supposed philosopher was.

Also, regarding biographical detail, the noted epistle of Apollonius seems to me suspect as a citation, for, as we have said, Democrates is a genuine Greek name, and the mere existence of an Apollonian contemporary by that name hardly justifies the rest of the article. (Also, in fact, it is epistle 96, not 88, but that may be beside the point!)

What harm would be done by noting more fully the occasional attributions to Democrates on Democritus’s article and changing Democrates’s to a redirect to Democritus? Or perhaps a disambiguation page could disambiguate things: a link to Democrates of Ephidna, a link to Sepulveda, a link to and a note on Democritus, and a note about the military commander. Pleased to take further part in the debate but better able to leave the question to more sage considerations than my own, I am sincerely yours, Twozenhauer (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Philosophy, History, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Golden Sentences/ Golden Maxims of Democrates? This seems to be attributed to him even if nothing else is? I think the disputed historicity is clearly displayed in the article, so as it stands I am happy to keep, maybe with more commentary on historicity?Spiralwidget (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Spiralwidget: Thank you for your consideration of this matter! But even considering the Golden Sentences, I am in favor of one of the options I have mentioned above. Near as I can tell, the article’s best quality is its statement that “many scholars argue that these maxims all originate from an original collection of sayings of Democritus”; granted, as the article goes on to say, “others believe that there was a different little-known Democrates whose name became confused with the much better-known Democritus.”

But with regard to the former statement, I refer my fellow editors also to this article by a scholar named Searby, which I quote here:

“The two most important sources for the ethical fragments of Democritus are Stobaeus' Anthology and the so-called ‘golden maxims of Democrates’ (a much discussed misnomer). Through a careful comparison, [the scholar Gerlach] confirms Lortzing's conclusion that Stobaeus utilized a collection of Democritus' maxims nearly identical with the pseudo-Democrates collection, which, for [Gerlach], has the methodological consequence of making Stobaeus an indirect witness to that tradition, complicated by the thematic rearrangement in the Stobaean anthology.” (emphasis mine)

But, truth be told, I have not found a tremendous amount of discussion per se; scholars seem by-and-large in agreement about “pseudo-Democrates”. Another confident attribution of the sayings to Democritus is this somewhat older piece by M. L. West.

I do not have access to the Democrates article’s cited The Atomists, Leucippus and Democritus (though it is mentioned in the Searby review cited above), but, in the article’s defense, I could advance this notice from 1925, which seems to present the attribution of Democrates to Democritus as somewhat new; but, even if I did so, I would have, at best, to advance merger of the Democrates article with that of Democrates of Aphidna: the noted dissertation by Philippson is a refutation of one Laue’s dissertation from 1921, in which the latter scholar, according to this contemporary report, advanced Democrates of Aphidna as the author of the sayings, which were apparently already widely attributed to Democritus. The report speaks of the same Philippson paper thus:

“Philippson is led to discuss the authenticity, character, and transmission of the ethical precepts of Democritus in reviewing H. Laue's dissertation . . . Laue's main contention is that the collection of precepts bearing the name of Democrates is not to be ascribed to Democritus, but to the Attic orator of that name from Aphidna. On this basis Laue tries to distinguish the style and content of the Democrates maxims from what he considers to be the genuine sayings of Democritus. Philippson points out that thirty-one precepts of the Democrates collection appear also in Stobaeus, and probably more were contained in the lost eclogues. Therefore the testimony of the Stobaeus MSS., which show the frequent occurrence of Democrates for Democritus, although the latter predominates, makes it highly probable that the author of the sayings in the above collection was Democritus. Moreover Lortzing has shown that Stobaeus obtained his Democritus precepts from the same source from which the Democrates collection was derived . . . . “ (emphases mine)

So, I submit that note of the conflicting attributions might be made on the articles for both Democritus and Democrates of Aphidna; Democrates as we have it may, I believe, be deleted or changed to a redirect, but hardly stand as it is: at very least, he is not the only Democrates, and his article’s title should not suggest that he is the standout holder of that name!

This is more by way of a postscript: Is it not also curious that the note at the beginning of the article calls him a first-century philosopher? His supposed correspondence with Apollonius would place him then, but the article goes on to say that his Ionic dialect is evidence of composition at “a very early period”; but then his possible contemporaneity with Julius Caesar seems to bring him closer to the first-century (but B. C.!) date. But this could be fixed even were the article retained. Twozenhauer (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Twozenhauer, can you cut down your deletion rationale for this article to two short paragraphs and "hat" the rest of your comments in case anyone wants to read them? Because I don't anticipate any editors with the patience to wade through your entire statements here. Please be concise in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- User:Liz, Certainly; thank you for your interest! Pardon my prolixity and my ignorance of “hats”; will the note I have placed suffice? §Scholars seem generally in agreement that the works of the supposed Democrates are in fact to be attributed to the well-known Democritus. Confusion of the names was not uncommon long ago, nor has it abated. The article as written relies upon a very few scraps of biographical detail, some conflicting and all doubtful, including its basic premise that Democrates is the author of the Golden Sayings or Sentences. Indeed, even those who question Democritus’s well-evidenced and widely-accepted authorship have only this premise on which to build a biography of a man who probably did not exist as such. The lone ready exception is a scholar who gives authorship of the Sayings to Democrates of Aphidna, who has an article with us. §I submit that the article on "Democrates" be deleted or changed to a disambiguation page: Pseudo-Democrates, the scholarly moniker by which the uncertain author of the Sayings is sometimes called, could be among the bullets; Democritus, too, with Democrates noted as a probable misspelling; Democrates of Aphidna could make another. On the articles for the latter two, a note about possible authorship of the Sayings could easily be slipped in. Twozenhauer (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the historicity of Democrates and authorship of his Golden Sayings are the subject of debate, that alone makes this a valid topic for coverage on Wikipedia. While some scholars attribute this work to Democritus, or to a different Democrates, others evidently do not. A sentence from the original article on which this one was based says that the identification of Democrates with Democritus is a mistake resulting from confusion between similar names. Is it? Wikipedia can cover the debate, but shouldn't be taking sides. Even if Democrates could be convincingly shown to be a phantom—which this article certainly does not do—the long discussion over whether he existed would still be worthy of coverage, and presumably under this title, since it would be a significant digression for a single work of Democritus. P Aculeius (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. I'm considering giving out barnstars to any experienced editors willing to assess all of the commentary here. Thank you!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you! Now, by way of replying to User:P Aculeius:

Thank you for your comment, and thank you especially for finding the link to Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. But I quite agree that the topic deserves to be covered here, and I believe your points about attribution are significantly addressed above. I do see your point about digression, though I still believe the controversy should be briefly addressed on Democritus and Democrates of Aphidna, perhaps with one or two of the citations above, e.g. from West or Searby, &c., as well as Smith. Also, the venerable source whose link you have fixed actually lists the orator from Aphidna first under his name! So, would I be wrong to persist in arguing that this Democrates, at least, should not be the bearer of an article simply so titled? Twozenhauer (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Fund (Venture Capital Firm)

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

Non-notable venture capital firm. No sources I could find that satisfy general notability or NCORP, not to mention the handful of low quality ones listed in the article, which range from self-published to routine. The TechCrunch ones are about a third party and not the firm itself. PK650 (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, calling out this cited Inc. article which hails the fund as the most active investor in silicon valley, thoughts on it? BananaManCanDance (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Canada, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA Division II football win–loss records

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

Subject does not appear to have the requisite coverage to meet the WP:NLIST, as the only source is from the NCAA and a cursory search turned up no non-database sources. Article was undeleted at REFUND after it was deleted at PROD but there has been no sources added since. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BUNDLE, I'm nominating the following article for deletion due to the same reason

Let'srun (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. They didn't event get all the D3 teams. Smh. Conyo14 (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Conyo. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

War Eagle, Arkansas (film)

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

I am nominating this as this article doesn't meet notability. Even its Rotten Tomatoes entry shows only one review. As well the article was written by HannoverHouse, who was a distributor for the film. source. So this article was also meant to be an advertisement. GamerPro64 01:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Arkansas. GamerPro64 01:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One review in Rotten Tomatoes, already linked in article, and I found another top of the search in Ebsco (War Eagle, Arkansas. By: Kaplan, Paul, Library Journal 2/1/2012, Vol. 137, Issue 2) as well as a note that it won Best Feature Film at the Connecticut Film Festival in 2008 (Soule, Alexander. Film fest ends run. Fairfield County Business Journal. 6/9/2008, Vol. 47 Issue 23, p2). Proquest also came up with 71 hits for the quoted title; from the first few there are two video reviews (Keogh, T. The Video Librarian; (Jan 1, 2012) & Anonymous. Library Journal; Vol. 137, Iss. 2, (Feb 01, 2012)), another review of the film (no text; Ratcliff, Ashley. Home Media Magazine; Vol. 33, Iss. 46, (Nov 14-Nov 20, 2011): 30.), and some details on a film festival showing in the New York Times (A Film Festival That Showcases the Disabled. New York Times Sep 16, 2008.). Generally where that much coverage falls on the first few hits there's a lot more to be found on digging. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chakobsa (Dune)

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

The notability for this stub article about a fictional language relies on its use in two films, and I don't see significant growth potential. The entry at Glossary of Dune (franchise) terminology#C is an acceptable redirect destination, and already includes the primary two sentences of content. I'm dubious about the notability of the newly added Phonology information, but even if it and other possible sourced additions are deemed as notable, this minor subtopic is more appropriate in Dune (franchise)#Additional linguistic and historic influences than as its own article. — TAnthony^Talk 01:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Language. — TAnthony^Talk 01:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Not much in the way of coverage, but perfectly slottable into a larger article where it can be better covered. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. This is a notable conlang used in two notable films (Dune and Dune: Part Two). The fact that the article is a stub does not mean that it should be deleted. See WP:TOOSHORT: Wikipedia has many stubs. These should not be deleted for this reason but should be marked as stubs. Even if the 'article' is really a dictionary entry, if there is published, reliable evidence of even the slightest potential for it to be expanded beyond this, it should be kept. Khiikiat (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. Some mention in NYT but not seeing 'Chakobsa' in NYorker. GS query shows some passing mentions. If anyone thinks this is notable (which is possible but not guaranteed), the burden is on them to show it with sources, not vague claims. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sommer Ray

AfDs for this article:

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

Her page is barebones and you can't expand it with anything that isn't promo content. She clearly isn't notable enough. Strawberries1 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sport of athletics, Internet, and Colorado. SK2242 (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Strawberries1: For future AfDs, you may want to make sure that this is transcluded on the log page and that you notify the article's creator. I’ve done that for you this time, but there are also instructions on WP:AFDHOWTO. SK2242 (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The sourcing isn’t amazing (People Magazine being the best one there) but it scrapes past WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per SK2242. A hard one to assess because there's so much coverage of her, it's just than 99% of it is useless garbage. But agree that there's enough in marginally reliable sources that she probably scrapes past WP:GNG. Hard to tell whether all of these meet WP:RS, but here are a few more articles about her that at least have a bylined reporter and seem not terrible: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] MCE89 (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]