Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Purge

22 January 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Purge server cache

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

A promotional biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:NEWSORGINDIAWP:ROUTINE, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Just a detailed resume WP:NORESUMES. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was an AfD discussion in the past Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balkrishan Goenka, which should be considered for this discussion. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Source 5 is a RS, briefly mentioning him in relation to the company. 8 is about his housing, 11 is about a lunch conversation with him, 15 is him giving his opinions... Some coverage about the Welspun company. I don't see notability for this individual with the sourcing used, nor can I find much else. The rest of the sourcing aren't in RS or don't help notability. Still not seeing enough to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 07:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

A promotional biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the whole page resembles a detailed resume WP:NORESUMES. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just routine and trivial coverage that doesn't stand out. Procyon117 (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 07:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

While trilogy is notable, subsequent (longer) concepts are very rarely discussed in depth in literary dictionaries, encyclopedias or other academic woks. This is a "4th" nom but as far as I can tell the previous noms were mass noms including, among other, better known tetralogy. Let's start from the most obscure end of this spectrum. My BEFORE as well as the quotations used for refs here do not show that 'heptalogy' has WP:SIGCOV anywhere, this is just a rarely used dict-def term) that can be redirected to Series fiction (which I am writing now) per WP:ATD-R. The article is just a dict def plus a list of notable heptalogies. Frankly, as I have recently begun incrasingly reviewing and writing about literature, I very much doubt we need more than the article on trilogy, as from the perspective of literature studies, there is no significance difference between the number of installments in a series outside 'short' and 'long'. For now, however, let's cut some dict-cruft. And if anyone wants to keep this - pleas show us how this meets SIGCOV. PS. Perhaps the list could be split into the list of heptalogies, if WP:LISTN can be shown to be met... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Lists. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I take it you're bringing this here because of prior AfDs, rather than BLAR'ing it when your new article is ready? Jclemens (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Also called septology, cf. Jon Fosse. Geschichte (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I have to say that the division of serial novels according to the number of volumes really makes no sense except as part of a general discussion of the class. Maybe. It's particularly obvious when you have something like the Earthsea books where for a long time there were three, then a fourth, and I lost track at how much further Leguin went after that. Does anyone refer to the series as an N-olgy where N is greater than three? And does anyone care what N equals? I'm just not seeing this as a meaningful class. Mangoe (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Nice work on the Series fiction article! Obviously the exact number of works is not a defining characteristic that connects a series to others with multiple volumes. A curated list may be good for the main article, but not sorted by number of works. Reywas92Talk 14:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: obviously a notable topic and a useful entry (See the three precedent AfDs, please; lists of notable works that are considered so include https://www.babelio.com/liste/6017/Les-plus-belles-heptalogies (in French)). -Mushy Yank. 16:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:LASTTIME. Congrats on managing to get three separate arguments to avoid combined into a single short sentence or two. Nor does your WP:UGC link confer even a whiff of notability to the topic, which if it were so obviously notable, wouldn't require resorting to a French source in the first place. Moreover, if you had actually looked at those previous nominations that you brought up, you'd see they were split between delete, keep, and no consensus. And the keep was part of a bundle so is harder to judge on its own. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (an edit-conflict with the above response), no, I disagree. Several of the sources currently used in Heptalogy discuss specifically the seven-ness of these series, stating that there is special significance to the author's choice of seven. The C.S.Lewis references are the obvious ones. These are rock-solid evidence that the concept is wikinotable. The same applies to trilogies, with even more force. The problem here is that our articles on both trilogies and heptalogies are rather poor, lazily producing lists rather than discussing the underlying concept as covered by literary scholars. But AfD is not for clean-up, and the lists aren't awful enough to merit TNT. Merging is a possibility, but I think it might unbalance the Series fiction article; trilogies, for instance, merit an absolutely enormous discussion because three has been seen as super-significant by many authors. There's also a strong need to distinguish, in series-fiction, between those series that are 3/4/5/6/7 by accident, with no underlying significance beyond the author's getting bored and moving on, and those where there is real meaning in the number. I think it's safer to cover this by having articles on the significance of a trilogy/heptalogy etc. rather than repeatedly trying to work out which series are "true" trilogies/heptalogies in the series fiction article. Elemimele (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elemimele I am happy to be proven wrong, but could you expand the article with a few sentences based on the sources that "discuss specifically the seven-ness of these series"? That would help make it more than a list. That said, I expect most n-volume long series, including heptalogies, are that long simply because that's when the author run out of steam, without particular planning to reach that particular target number. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find anything that even the concept of a heptalogy is notable, let alone something that justifies creating a list of them -- a list with a criterion which can be difficult to settle without performing OR due to questions of whether books belong in the same series or not by being set in the same universe (Neal Stephenson's come to mind here). Nor have any convincing arguments been put forward. Frankly, I'm highly dubious that anything past trilogy really deserves an article, but we'll leave that for another day I guess. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 07:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article fails to meet WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources to establish notability. Its significance revolves around a single protest and lacks substantial information on the park's broader significance. On reading the article I observed some of the article lines read like promotional material, which goes against WP:NOTADVERT. Without comprehensive, independent coverage, the topic does not warrant a standalone article. Nxcrypto Message 05:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 06:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Space Solar Power Exploratory Research and Technology program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article lacks inline cites and the topic is already covered in Space-based_solar_power#Exploratory_Research_and_Technology_program No objection to merging if you think the refs at the end of this article are sufficient. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I Believe this artcile should be deleted as the article is not notable and the writer of the article has a Conflict of interest. Jake Jakubowski Talk 20:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing me towards the notability requirements of the platform. Several updates have been implemented over the past week that I believe meet the requested changes. 71.88.44.206 (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This IP address is Jim Wolf himself, Conflict of interest. If you check the history of this page he has done most of the edits he does himself. Jake Jakubowski Talk 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jake-jakubowski - this AFD was never transcluded to the log and was missing the templates. I have tried to fix it for you.Jay8g [VTE] 04:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page… Jim wolf is notable enough to have a page. His accomplishment show as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:CE3F:A306:64A0:90CA:D5AD:881B (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the only well-articulated rationale here is the Keep argument. COI is not a reason to delete an article as it can be addressed through editing and there is no detailed deletion rationale presented. I think that we need to hear from more editors familiar with assessing articles in AFD discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails to demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP. Available references mostly discuss product launches, no significant coverage of the company itself and the product themselves do not appear independently notable. Brandon (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, article has been PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't believe she meets WP:ARTIST. Could not find coverage in google news or books. The awards do not appear major (and not reported in press). She is not part of a permanent collection of notable galleries. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am looking her up in Australian art sources to check notability. In the meantime, as most of her career has been in Germany and she has received more exposure there, is there any way to refer her article to German Wikipedia and see if the German editors can find her as a notable artist there? LPascal (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The German article is also poorly sourced. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article Anne Pincus does not have sources either (other Wikipedia sites have different criteria, and don't always require sources etc). Her own website, shown in the External links section, has a Press section which lists reviews of her exhibitions in publications like Süddeutsche Zeitung and Abendzeitung. Those articles have links to the newspapers' websites - I've just searched Süddeutsche Zeitung and found a 2021 review, but on first glance neither seems to go back far enough for reviews before that. I think as far as galleries are concerned, we'd also need to search in German galleries ... RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have looked at her artist's file in an art library and found enough ephemera and clippings to confirm the accuracy of her CV under "Exhibitions" on her own website. There isn't a lot of information about her in english since she left Australia for Germany in the late 1990s. She has been interviewed by Australian press and looks like occasionally exhibits here but I haven't found any of her works in the collections of the major government galleries. As mentioned in previous comments she might meet German wikipedia's standards for notability. I don't make a keep or delete comment one way or another on principle because I disagree with wikipedia's biased notability criteria for Australian women artists.LPascal (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LPascal, did you find any clippings of reviews? If so, could you perhaps include them as sources in the article? (Sorry, you probably would have if there were any - this is probably just wishful thinking!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a few sources to the article, and a bit of info. I'm also finding some paywalled sources, such as this [6], and any articles in the Süddeutsche Zeitung beyond the one I have accessed (which is a review of an exhibition, but doesn't seem to be written by an art critic). RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Highly promotional and of very questionable notability over a WP:SUSTAINED period. Amigao (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Agree that the article as written seems quite promotional in tone, and it seems there might possible be conflict on interest concerns, but those are both things to be fixed through editing, not AfD nominations. If you want to go through and reword all the promotional parts, have at it. There seems to be more than enough coverage to establish notability though (some sources aren’t great, but there are enough that are to establish notability). As for WP:SUSTAINED arguments… I see sources from 2016 - 2024 so I can’t see how it applies here? Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, definitely needs cleanup but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Keep but WP:STUBIFY is appropriate. DCsansei (talk) 11:59, 10 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! 03:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems to have a circular logic to it. Genlin is notable for funding World Dog Alliance, but I cannot find RS to show World Dog Alliance is notable. The whole table in the middle Contributions by Genlin/ World Dog Alliance conflates the two and can be considered original research. for example The joint efforts of Genlin and lobbyists succeeded in convincing Republic Congressman Jeff Denham to include a ban on dog meat consumption into the 2018 Farm Bill passed on 12 December 2018 in the House of Representatives. The bill obtained bipartisan support, notably from Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings, who had earlier co-sponsored a separate bill to Congress (H.R. 1406 - To amend the Animal Welfare Act to prohibit the slaughter of dogs and cats for human consumption[1]) to ban consumption of dog and cat meat but did not succeed in garnering enough support for a standalone bill on animal rights. The 2018 Farm Bill was successfully passed alongside with other agricultural and food policies. the footnote is to the actual bill which does not mention either Genlin or World Dog Alliance. Many other blocks of text in the table do the same thing, state that Genlin has affected some sort of change without proper citations. I cannot see how this article can be stubified. I am hampered by lack of Chinese. I realize that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, but this falls under WP:TNT.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Text - H.R.1406 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): To amend the Animal Welfare Act to prohibit the slaughter of dogs and cats for human consumption". www.congress.gov. 23 March 2017. Retrieved 18 January 2025.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:EVENT. No lasting impact or coverage. All the sources are from March 2015. Whilst number of deaths is not a criterion, we don't generally keep articles with such a low death and injury count. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:EVENT. Almost 10 years later, all the coverage is from 2015. No lasting coverage or WP:EFFECT. A zero fatality incident. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Mount Carbon train derailment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:EVENT. Almost 10 years later, all the coverage is from 2015. No lasting coverage or WP:EFFECT. LibStar (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Completely duplicative of clarinet article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not getting anything useful on this one; there was a chapel here but there's nothing now, and there never was much. Searching comes up with nothing. Mangoe (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

A search for sources yielded nothing in depth to meet WP:ORG. The 2 sources provided are primary. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can't seem to find any WP:SIGCOV on this player in either English or Ukrainian. Fails WP:GNG, as a result. Anwegmann (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can't seem to find any WP:SIGCOV on this player. He seems to fail WP:GNG, as a result. Anwegmann (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Declined prod that was redirected. I contested the redirect Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_8#Manop_Leeprasansakul. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unless there are non-English sources that can be found, there is nothing I can find that amounts to significant coverage. A redirect to Hum TV would be a good WP:ATD but would not qualify as a standalone page. CNMall41 (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Insufficient evidence can be found that this subject is independently notable - except for the sponsoring organization's own website and materials, the other reliable sources all appear to be passing mentions or entirely promotional in nature as they are announcements that someone has won the award and not substantively about this subject. ElKevbo (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Firstly, I want to say I don't do this very often so if I make a mistake or miss a step, please forgive me. I do not believe this island meets notability requirements. I can only find one source and there seems to be nothing special about this very small island. Masterhatch (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cree Lake; see also WP:GEONATURAL. There's not much to be found online about this island apart from placename databases and weather websites. No hits on ProQuest, Google Scholar returns 1 citation (no preview), and Google Books returns a number of hits, but most are for the unrelated "Cowie's Island". Mindmatrix 20:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to Cree Lake) seems reasonable. I searched several reference databases through my library and nothing about this Cowie Island except name-only mentions in some old books. Similar results on Google/Scholar/Books today. This might just be a name on a map with nothing more ever written about it. --Here2rewrite (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
External Revenue Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe this meets the notability criteria. The "proposed agency" was mentioned by Trump in a social media post, so it's not clear it will actually be created; no other politician or policymaker has seriously discussed the proposal, and no legislative action has been taken to create the agency. CatoTheWiseAss (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Due to the press coverage and the fact that it's been mentioned in the inauguration speech. Aŭstriano (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It still doesn't meet notability requirements. He mentioned it, but that doesn't mean he'll move forward with it or that the agency will end up being created. If a bill is introduced or actual action is taken, we should reassess, but for now this isn't notable. CatoTheWiseAss (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for the reasons enumerated in my original post and subsequent discussion CatoTheWiseAss (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Economic policy of the second Donald Trump administration, and yes, I know that this page is currently a redirect to the main DJT article, but it's an article which will certainly have to be created soon. At this point the proposal is a notable part of his larger economic and fiscal policy agenda, and was mentioned in his inaugural address. But I do agree that it's not yet quite at the point of warranting an article of its own, in large part since there simply aren't yet many details known about this proposal. But if/when it's further developed, this could well change. -2003:CA:8723:6551:3D79:C1D4:E66F:E1D6 (talk) 23:53, 21 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! 02:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is essentially a resume. The person doesn't appear to pass general notability guidelines. A re-direct to the school is possible, but I question if having a redirect to a small school for every one of their past president is necessary. Graywalls (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following for the same reason:

Jack McBride Ryder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Michigan. Graywalls (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can only find articles about his retirement and public speaking events after that, nothing really showing notability. Primary sourcing is used in the article now, so that's not helping. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (of ERG article): It seems to me that the central question is whether C6 of WP:NPROF is met by ERG due to their having served as the president of Saginaw Valley State University and of Johnson State College (now part of Vermont State University). Since the former school offers a significant number of master's degrees and three doctorates (DNP; see https://www.svsu.edu/graduateprograms/), it seems to me that that the answer is yes. I qualify this as a weak keep because this is not an R1 university and does not appear to be historically significant. I do agree that WP:GNG is not met, and if the page is to remain it needs significant editing so as to not present as a resume. I see no way for this particular subject to satisfy the other criteria of WP:NPROF. The other page (about JMR) should be considered on its own merits; I am unsure whether we are supposed to be discussing both of them here. Qflib (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qflib What academic accomplishments and citations does he have? that would qualify under NPROF? My position is that he doesn't qualify under "a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc." I believe "significance" or "highly regarded" of this school is subjective and in mine, it's not. Graywalls (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one of the 6 criteria of NPROF need to be met in order to establish notability; please read it carefully. I specifically pointed out that I was referring only to C6 of NPROF, so academic citations are immaterial. I also specifically pointed out that "I see no way for this particular subject to satisfy the other criteria of WP:NPROF." I stand by my weak keep recommendation; if other senior editors come on here and convince me otherwise, I am open to input. Qflib (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I buy the WP:NPROF C6 rationale, as president of a mid-sized college/university. I additionally note that I found several local newspaper sources: [9][10][11]. He was involved in a minor scandal regarding a football hazing incident [12][13]. It's weak for a GNG case, but it helps support the NPROF case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep of both. Even if not technically passing the PROF test, the presidents of medium size state colleges probably will get significant coverage in their state's media. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the repeated use of the word weak, consensus looks like keep but also looks weak so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still a !delete for me, not passing PROF, the rest doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 20:24, 14 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! 02:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

From a WP:BEFORE, I am unable to find any independent sources with significant coverage. The only sources I could find with SIGCOV are interviews /wedding announcements, which are ineligible towards GNG. NACTOR is also not met here, as none of these roles are significant enough to warrant a separate article. No plausible ATDR either. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:41, 14 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! 02:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Probably fails WP:GNG. It's mentioned in a few studies about motifs and the viruses that have it, but only seems to be a major part of one primary source (the one used in the article). When comparing this motif to others, most of the motifs in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Protein_structural_motifs are much broader in scope than the YGL motif and have been the subject of far more research than the YGL motif. Google search returns 15 (filtered) results, 3 of which (20%) are to Wikipedia. Google Scholar just ten results. Velayinosu (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tagged for notability since 2021. Currently uses only government websites which are reliable but lack independence from the subject. Time to decide as a community whether or not this meets WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1882 in Scandinavian music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We have articles for 1882 in Norwegian music (where this article was an unattributed copy from), 1880s in Danish music, 1882 in Finnish music and 1880s in Swedish music. Comparable to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 in Scandinavian music. Fram (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for the same reasons:

1881 in Scandinavian music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fram (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Mainly covered in gossip media and controversy like "child abuse" is not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. Gheus (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 222399 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:29, 7 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! 19:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 41162 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:30, 7 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! 19:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 174569 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:30, 7 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! 19:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't see how it passes WP:NCORP. The notability banner has remained unresolved for 12 years. Cinder painter (talk) 10:56, 7 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! 19:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't see how this defunct Chinese bank passes WP:NCORP. No reliable sources or significant coverage Cinder painter (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Daysog, Rick (2006-11-09). "Isle company weighs $31M bid". The Honolulu Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2025-01-13. Retrieved 2025-01-13.

      The article notes: "A California banking company on an expansion spree has made an unsolicited $31 million bid for a majority stake in the parent company of Honolulu-based Finance Factors. ... TFC is the parent of Alhambra, Calif.-based TomatoBank, which operates five branches in the Los Angeles area and has about $350 million in assets. The bank, known as InterBusiness Bank until it changed its name in August, was founded six years ago by Los Angeles physician Stephen Liu. The bank specializes in lending to Los Angeles' Asian-American and Hispanic communities. ... The bid for Finance Enterprises underscores TomatoBank's aggressive growth strategy."

    2. Kuehner-Hebert, Katie (2006-08-14). "Fruit? Vegetable? Neither; CEO: New name appeals to target markets". American Banker. Vol. 171, no. 155. pp. 1–5. EBSCOhost 21948502. Factiva AMB0000020060814e28e00003. Archived from the original on 2025-01-13. Retrieved 2025-01-13.

      The article notes: "Dr. Stephen Liu likes to compare the bank he co-founded six years ago to a tomato. ... In fact, the medical doctor-turned-banker likes the comparison so much that last week the $350 million-asset InterBusiness Bank in Alhambra, Calif., officially changed its name to TomatoBank. Dr. Liu, its chairman and chief executive officer, said he had always thought the old name was too generic, and he has been trying to persuade the board to change it for years to give the bank more visibility in the ethnic communities it targets in and around Los Angeles. The new name is not a complete stretch. The bank has used a tomato as its logo since its inception, and its Web address has been www.tomatobank.com since 2001. Dr. Liu said the word "tomato" resonates with Asian-American customers, because banks in Asia are often named after fruit, vegetables, or flowers grown in their region, and Asian-Americans particularly love tomatoes. ... Richard A. Soukup, a partner with the Chicago office of the consulting firm, Plante & Moran PLLC, said that the TomatoBank name is "refreshingly innovative" and will definitely be a conversation starter. "But time will tell if it has legs and branding appeal." Ted Salame, the president of BrandEquity International in Newton, Mass., thinks it will. ... Dr. Liu's bank actually had done quite well under the InterBusiness name. Its assets have nearly doubled in the last two years. Last year its net income rose 83%, to $3.7 million. Its efficiency ratio, its return on assets, and its net interest margin are all above average for banks in its asset class, according to Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. data."

    3. Allen, Mike (2007-10-01). "TomatoBank Targets Latino Customers, Opens Chula Vista Branch". San Diego Business Journal. Vol. 28, no. 40. p. 3. EBSCOhost 27088532. Factiva SDBJ000020071026e3a100006.

      The article notes: "In the world of bank names that are mundane and commonplace, Tomato-Bank, which recently opened an office in Chula Vista, stands out. The Alhambra-based commercial bank was formerly known as InterBusiness Bank until last year when it rebranded itself. ... The change appears to be working as Tomato's total assets sprouted up 26 percent over the year ended June 30 to $445 million, while its loans increased 36 percent over the same period to $341 million. ... Buoyed by the bank's growth, it decided to open a branch in the San Diego area, the first branch outside Los Angeles County. ... To attract its targeted customers, TomatoBank's first branch is housed inside an El Tigre Supermarket, a supermarket chain based in Escondido that caters to Latinos. ... Hans Ganz, chief executive of Chula Vista-based Pacific Trust Bank with some $770 million in assets, had not heard of TomatoBank, but said their strategy could be effective. Ganz said other banks have been successful at targeting specific minority groups, such as Nara Bank in Los Angeles, which targets Korean Americans."

    4. Tanaka, Rodney (2007-02-25). "Banking with a personal touch". San Gabriel Valley Tribune. Factiva xKRTGB00020070227e32q00001. Archived from the original on 2025-01-13. Retrieved 2025-01-13.

      The article notes: "Step into TomatoBank in Alhambra and you may not realize you're in a bank, since you don't wait to interact with a teller standing behind Plexiglas. ... The company also focuses on community service. The bank's latest partnership is with the Urban Education Partnership, which focuses on helping high-poverty, multi-cultural Los Angeles County schools with academic achievement. ... The bank, which has 75 employees, has grown 40 percent to 50 percent each year, he said. The company has six offices and plans to open two more in Arcadia and San Diego."

    5. Schachar, Natalie (2015-11-11). "In Merger, Interesting Name of TomatoBank to Disappear". Los Angeles Business Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-01-13. Retrieved 2025-01-13.

      The article notes: "The parent company of L.A.’s Royal Business Bank announced Tuesday that it has signed a definitive agreement to acquire the parent of TomatoBank. Assuming the transaction is completed as expected in the first quarter next year, what may be L.A.’s most interesting bank name will disappear thereafter. TomatoBank, which operates six full-service branches in Los Angeles and Orange County, primarily serves Asian-American communities, the same demographic focus of Royal Business Bank. TFC Holding Co., TomatoBank’s parent, reported assets of about $488 million, deposits of $421 million and shareholders’ equity of $60.5 million as of Sept. 30. All TomatoBank branches will eventually be converted to Royal Business Bank."

    6. Tanaka, Rodney (2007-05-30). "Ripe investments". San Gabriel Valley Tribune. Factiva KRTGB00020070531e35v0002t. Archived from the original on 2025-01-13. Retrieved 2025-01-13.

      The article notes: "TomatoBank planted its latest seed, opening a new branch in Arcadia Saturday. TomatoBank has eight branches, including regional offices in Industry and Alhambra. ... Founded in 2000, has about $410 million in assets and is expected to approach $1 billion by the end of the decade, according to the bank. ... TomatoBank is also active in the community, providing summer internships through the Urban Education Partnership and sponsoring financial literacy programs for the American Junior Golf Association."

    7. Daysog, Rick (2006-11-22). "Finance Factors' owner rejects TFC takeover bid". The Honolulu Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2025-01-13. Retrieved 2025-01-13.

      The article notes: "Finance Enterprises Ltd. said its 12-member board voted unanimously last week to turn down TFC Holdings Inc.'s $1,000-per-share offer for 31,000 shares, or 51 percent of the company's stock. ... TFC is the parent of Alhambra, Calif.-based TomatoBank, which has $350 million in assets and operates five branches in the Los Angeles area. TomatoBank, known as InterBusiness Bank until it changed its name in August, was founded six years ago by Los Angeles physician Stephen Liu. The bank specializes in lending to Los Angeles' Asian-American and Hispanic communities."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tomato Bank (traditional Chinese: 宏基銀行; simplified Chinese: 宏基银行) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 02:36, 13 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! 19:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. All source is breaking news or trial stuff, no retrospection, after the execution it was seemingly never discussed again. Interestingly, not a case of recentism (all sourcing is from 1901). There is one very brief mention in an academic article from this year in an article about Australian executions, but otherwise nothing. If we had some article like "list of people executed by Australia" I would suggest a redirect to that, but we do not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:39, 7 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! 20:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

As a city councilman, fails WP:NPOL. The sourcing does not demonstrate WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: POLOUTCOMES is not a community endorsed guideline or policy. It is instead a recording of what has happened. But when challenged an article should be shown to be notable and not by relying on the OUTCOMES page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Mostly this is an argument that WP:POLOUTCOMES is, like many such notability tests, largely bad where it is invoked. There is no explicit claim of notability, and Mr. Chico is not claimed to have done anything that anyone outside of the city limits might care about; I have to suspect that even in Chicago he is a relatively anonymous figure to those who don't have to deal with him on a work basis. There are a very few cases where city councilmembers have come to notoriety, but considering for example Marion Barry, most of his infamy came about while he was mayor, and his second go-'round on the council was largely notable simply because he was elected at all after the drug bust. There is no claim that this person even vaguely approaches that. Mangoe (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Baltimore City Council District 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unclear what makes this special from the other districts or pass WP:GNG. Redirect to Baltimore City Council. charlotte 👸♥ 01:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Simply being mayor does not guarantee notability. She does not meet WP:NPOL, a small amount of coverage eg her commenting on water issues but insufficient WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doesn’t seem to meet WP:ACADEMIC. signed, SpringProof talk 00:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doesn’t seem to meet WP:BIO. signed, SpringProof talk 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, Music, and Sweden. signed, SpringProof talk 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can't access Svenskt Klavikordbygge 1720–1820, but the other two sources in the article just contain trivial mentions (the first source just cites the second and third sources). Can't find anything other than trivial mentions in my search, but historical bios are relatively likely to have hard-to-find sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: She doesn't have an entry on the Swedish Wikipedia, although her husband and brother (both also instrument makers) do. She's briefly mentioned here and here (under her maiden name) in entries on her husband, which just say that she continued operating his workshop after his death. She's also briefly mentioned here in an entry on her brother. Sadly it seems like she's basically been treated as a side note in sources about her male relatives. Hopefully someone else is able to find something more substantial, because from what I could find I'm not sure there's enough in the historical record to warrant an article about her. MCE89 (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]