Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 10	March 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Explosive Pro Wrestling

AfDs for this article:

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

Very limited third party sources to the point of a fail in WP:ORG and WP:GNG as previously mentioned in the previous two AfD's" (see also the talk page of the promotion) 2001:8003:5130:2601:167:D2C7:4D20:837E (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Wrestling, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vernacular Music Research

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

Unfortunately, I can't find enough sources for this to pass GNG (though I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong). There's an hour-long presentation and... just nothing else. Even the obituary of founder Thornton Hagert has just a few sentences about it. Hagert himself doesn't seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC for his musicology work or WP:MUSICBIO as a musician. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Museums and libraries, and Pennsylvania. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Richard Gaetjens

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

Declined prod. Added third party sources do not establish notability. This is just a funeral listing and this is about his wife and not Pierre-Richard. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Haiti. LibStar (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:LibStar, how do you know the second source is only about the wife? Most of the article is paywalled at the server side. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joaquim Ferreira (athlete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chae Hong-nak, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adalberto García for recent AfDs on Olympians of similar notability which is why I'm not sure if the research was done here. --Habst (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt it is SIGCOV on Pierre-Richard if the headline is about his wife. If the headline was "Pierre-Richard Gaetjens the athlete did..." then yes. You cannot claim similar notability to other athletes as there is simply a lack of sources. As you would agree, every article needs to be assessed on its merits and not compared to others. LibStar (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, every article needs to be assessed on its merits, and so does every source -- we can't assess it if it hasn't even been read yet.

On the merits, regardless of whether or not the above source pans out the subject was documented as the youngest Hatian Olympian ever and their first 100m sprinter to qualify since 1932 -- so I think there's something to that. Per this case, there is no single bar of achievement for Olympic athletics competitors, and standards of achievement vary a lot by region. Seeing how the subject was able to be the first in so long, I think there's a good argument that sources exist per WP:NEXIST. --Habst (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deccani–Vijayanagar wars

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

Full of AI-generated content by blocked socks, and previously soft AfD'ed. Since its WP:REFUND, nothing significant has been done to improve this mess so far. – Garuda ^Talk! 21:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Asia, India, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu. – Garuda ^Talk! 21:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article has lots of issues, like lacking reliable citations, peacock terms, and synthesis. If improved with better sources and a neutral tone, it should be kept, but for now, the whole article is a complete mess. NXcrypto Message 02:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD before so Soft deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kamana Koji

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

Declined prod. A sole third party source was added but cannot verify this is SIGCOV. The other sources are databases. I believe he still fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY as well as WP:NATH. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inside The Trojan Horse

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

The band isn't notable despite having at least one questionably notable member. Not sure if there's a good redirect but this does fail the basics of nmusic - no real charting and the sole coverage is from unreliable or otherwise unimpressive/run of the mill blog type sources. CUPIDICAE❤️ 21:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, the group features three notable members from successful groups. Jpierce007 (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections have also been made to the article adhering to encyclopedic data Jpierce007 (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections, deletions, reference repair, grammatical corrections adhering to encyclopdic data Jpierce007 (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections both grammatical al and encyclopedic based, re-write, and reference repair Jpierce007 (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Jpierce007, do not copy and paste the same comment over and over again. Four times is enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Jhain

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

Fails WP:GNG, None of the sources gives enough significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) of this event/conflict to establish Notability (WP:N). Moreover the article focuses more on the background and the aftermath as the article only mentions 2-3 lines about the actual conflict. Koshuri ^(グ) 19:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, India, and Rajasthan. Koshuri ^(グ) 19:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Koshuri ^(グ) 19:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are plenty of sources that significantly cover it. The article could be expanded though. [1] [2] [3] (pg 209) [4] (Page 221) [5] (pg 136) Noorullah (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Per nomination. The sources provided by Noorullah21 doesn't provides WP:SIGCOV while other ones are unreliable. First two sources doens't have WP:SIGCOV and the authors of the rest of the sources are not historian. CelesteQuill (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CelesteQuill Nonsense. Cited on google scholars: [6] [7] Noorullah (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Noorullah, there are sufficient sources that covers this event significantly. Article surely needs some copyediting. Mr.Hanes Talk 06:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All I see sources spun around the event's vicinity but not giving due coverage to the event itself. – Garuda ^Talk! 00:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Noorullah and Mr.Hanes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakakarta (talk • contribs) 08:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gurdan Saini: For what it's worth, it certainly doesn't come up with enough SIGCOV to have its own article. Removed some near-depreciated sources for a clear analysis. – Garuda ^Talk! 00:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Bernard

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

Minor, short-lived guitar brand with no coverage beyond passing mentions in articles about the founder's other company, B.C. Rich. But B.C. Rich being notable doesn't make this company notable. Most of the content also appears to just be OR. Mbinebri (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, article is a perm stub with no reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theking49393 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one seems like an easy call, per the nomination. Fails WP:GNG by a wide margin. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:29, 8 March 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!} 22:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Certified Professional Managers

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

Declined prod with 1 source added which doesn't appear to meet reliable sources. Still fails WP:ORG for lack of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Education, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to go with delete. Even after finding the listing on the university's site, I still can't quite figure out what this is. I checked Guidestar for the non-profit information, and it seems pretty minor. I find it listed in websites where it is essentially advertising. Search turns up the usual Facebook etc. No independent sources that I can find. Lamona (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so no eligibility for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New York R.L.F.C.

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

No significant coverage as this club never seemed to have actually played a competitive game before folding. J Mo 101 (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage, half the refs are about other club's. Redirect to NARL could be an option, but doubt there are many searching for this club. Mn1548 (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has been PROD'd so is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

InterWorx

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. The current sources are not independent and/or do not contain SIGCOV. The most coverage I could find was a tiny paragraph in this book. Other than that, there's trivial mentions in some papers on GScholar. Deproded in 2014 with a brief explanation on the talk page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

College Basketball on CBS results

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:LISTN criteria. Let'srun (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, Lists, and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have articles about teams' seasons, there is nothing notable about the games that happened to be aired on a particular network. Reywas92^Talk 00:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Central Colchester

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

This seems to be an entity purely of the editor's imagination. There is no established, identifiable area described anywhere in local media or signposting as central Colchester. There is no special economic zone, there is no first among seven districts: the City (formerly Borough) of Colchester has 29 parishes, 3 areas under a town council, and one area under a community council, but the area mapped here is part of a wider unparished area. This is based on an entirely fictional boundary. Kevin McE (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like the perspective of a single editor without use of any kind of sourcing. Even were it well supported, I'm not sure why this would be its own article and not just a section of the article on Colchester more broadly. Boredintheevening (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unique homomorphic extension theorem

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

Through a Google search, I couldn't find any results directly related to "Unique homomorphic extension theorem", so it's not clear if it's notable (or a rebranding of something notable). Given that this page has been an orphan for many years and in its current state is too technical to be of use for most readers, it seems worth a review. I'm not familiar with the topic, so would like to get the opinion from people more familiar with it 7804j (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 7804j (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tambo del Visitador

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

Contested draft. User who created this page is edit warring, and has moved this page to mainspace several times, even though the page is clearly not ready for publishing. Page needs more sources and further improvements. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Spain, and Peru. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Belgorod accidental bombing

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

Fails WP:EVENT. Minor event with no lasting effect or coverage. Jay D. Easy (t) 20:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. Jay D. Easy (t) 20:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Ruzek

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

An associate professor with a long career in psychology, but who doesn't meet WP:NPROF. Their high-impact papers are mid-author contributions to multi-author papers, or reviews. Doesn't seem to make general notability criteria either. Klbrain (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychology, and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gracia Dura Bin

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

Reason Alexthegod5 (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC) Non notable individual who's only source of significance is that her husband named a city after her in Florida, which is already summarized in his article (Andrew Turnbull (colonist)). Alexthegod5 (talk)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Turkey. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brentalfloss

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:N Question from community? QalasQalas (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Video games, Games, and Texas. QalasQalas (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like it should have stayed a community discussion, or maybe escalated to a WP:VG one? There's no coherent deletion nomination here or there as is. Not a good approach to a subject that has already survived 2 AFDs. Sergecross73 msg me 23:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Serge, dear I would like to ask 1 thing, the page if you see who created it, isn't it COI? Also, the page was nominated back in the day when YouTube and other platforms might be used, but now as per the perennial sources we cannot use YouTube. The creator of this page has a copy of this page already made. Please see and let me know your thoughts. I am a learner and want you to clarify. I believe this nomination is correct and the page should not be here based on my limited knowledge. But surely you will help me understand better Xusers (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Am I wrong @QalasQalas help me understand better Xusers (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds do you think there is a COI? What makes you bring that up? Sergecross73 msg me 00:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, please check the ID of @Savvywoza and do guide me if I am wrong. I am not challenging your authority. I am just trying to learn Xusers (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think he just wrote a rough draft of the "brentalfloss" article on his user page. His user page pretty much matches the version of the "brentalfloss" article that he published 14 years ago. You're not really supposed to create draft articles on your main user page, but it is a common newbie mistake, and the article creator had very few edits to their name. Sergecross73 msg me 00:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just asking if you would accept an AFC if I posted an identical page, with the identical mistake? In recent week. Would it be accepted by the community? Or would it be declined due to not meeting notability criteria? Xusers (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. The article isn't in great shape, but "unfounded COI accusations and the presence of YouTube links" isn't a valid rationale, or an accurate summation of all of the sourcing present either. Sergecross73 msg me 02:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please convert this comment into a Speedy Keep, no deletion ratonale articulated if one is not added and I don't revisit this by the time this is closed. Jclemens (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mandoulides Schools

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

This article about a private school in Greece has been unsourced since it's it's creation ~10 years ago, apart from a cited video that is about an event rather than the school itself. No significant, secondary reliable sources could be found suggesting that this school passed either WP:GNG or WP:NORG in any way . Most hits are either business listings or content that would otherwise fall under WP:ORGTRIV. KonstantinaG07 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Greece. KonstantinaG07 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of children of prime ministers of India

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

Considering we don’t an article on the children of the prime ministers of the United Kingdom, which has many more notable children than India, it makes sense to delete the article. Interstellarity (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, we do have List of children of presidents of the United States and even List of children of vice presidents of the United States (?!). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many children of Indian prime ministers are notable for being a member of parliament/union minister themselves. And the rationale of deleting this article just because we don't have the list of UK prime ministers children article doesn't make sense, someone can just make that list. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 01:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, the reason we don't have an article List of children of prime ministers of the United Kingdom is that it was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of children of prime ministers of the United Kingdom in 2022. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reeth Mazumder

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

Context: A user claiming to be Reeth Mazumder came into #wikipedia-en-help to ask if this autobiographic article can be deleted.

The current sources: invalid; primary; IMDb x3; Times of India x2; International Business Times x2; gossip mag.

I have done a Google search and find no sources that meet our criteria: either primary, interviews, or celeb gossip databases. qcne (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. qcne (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I looked at the sources while qcne was doing WP:BEFORE; none of them are any good. When the best sources you have are scandal rags, that's a very bad sign. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ilyas El Maliki

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

Fails GNG and WP:PERP. Ignoring the usual online influencer unreliable sources like WP:DEXERTO and WP:SPORTSKEEDA, this guy is only notable for having been sued for a few minor charges and serving two months in prison [8]. The other sources that are not about this lawsuit are mostly routine announcements and do not talk about him in any significant depth. This page was previously created by blocked sock User:IMDB12, deleted per WP:A7 on January 1, and was now recreated by a different new COI account. Badbluebus (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Internet, and Morocco. Badbluebus (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject meets WP:GNG with multiple independent sources covering his career beyond any legal issues. The article cites Hespress, Yabiladi, Morocco World News, and Kings League, which are all independent, reliable sources discussing his achievements in streaming, sports, and digital media. Dismissing Dexerto does not negate the fact that there is substantial non-routine coverage of his career.

The claim that this is a WP:PERP case is misleading. WP:PERP applies when a person is only known for a legal issue, which is not the case here. His coverage in independent media predates and goes beyond any legal matter. The sources clearly establish his streaming success, leadership in the Kings World Cup, and industry recognition, including being named Moroccan Influencer of the Year.

As for the claim that this article was recreated by the same blocked user, there is no actual evidence to support this—no IP check, no behavioral analysis, nothing. An accusation without proof should not be a basis for deletion. If there are concerns about sockpuppetry, they should be handled separately through proper channels, not used as an argument in AfD.

This is a well-sourced article about a notable subject, and per WP:GNG, it should be kept. Datamanager3000 (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I meant to add this at the start of my previous comment but forgot. Just clarifying my stance. Datamanager3000 (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator. I checked all of the sources in the article and it is extremely weak. There is no indication that most of these are even reliable sources, and in my opinion, using unvetted sources for a WP:BLP (unless the source is obviously reliable) is a very, very bad idea and should not be able to help notability at all. λ NegativeMP1 04:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know where you're from but in Morocco these are all very reliable sources apart from LGAMINGMA. Datamanager3000 (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But do they meet our criteria for a reliable source? No, I don't think they do, since sites like LGaming.ma don't have any editorial policy or about us page, and therefore no proper credentials. Furthermore, are those sites listed on WP:RSP or WP:VG/S? No, they aren't. λ NegativeMP1 04:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am defending the retention of the article about Ilyas El Maliki because of the independent sources cited, such as Hespress, Yabiladi, and Morocco World News, which highlight his success in streaming, sports, and digital media. This success is not only tied to legal issues but is supported by significant media coverage of his career and achievements, including his participation in the Kings World Cup. Additionally, he was named Moroccan Influencer of the Year, which underscores his prominence. Furthermore, the claim that the article was recreated by the same blocked user is unfounded and lacks evidence. Based on these facts, I believe the article should be kept according to the guidelines of the encyclopedia. Hkatib (talk) 04:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see what guidelines you're talking about because notability can only be demonstrated by reliable, secondary sources. None of the sources in the article can contribute to notability. See WP:GNG. λ NegativeMP1 05:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that “none of the sources in the article contribute to notability” is not accurate. Hespress, Yabiladi, and Morocco World News are among the most widely recognized and referenced media outlets in Morocco. These are established, independent news sources that cover a range of topics, including politics, sports, and entertainment. Just because they are not listed on WP:RSP does not mean they are unreliable—WP:RSP is not an exhaustive list of every reliable source.

The subject's notability is clearly demonstrated by substantial independent coverage in multiple sources, including his rise in streaming, his role in the Kings World Cup, and his recognition as Moroccan Influencer of the Year. These are not routine announcements but sustained coverage across different aspects of his career.

Additionally, dismissing a source simply because it is not listed on WP:RSP is not how Wikipedia determines reliability. If there is a specific policy-based reason why Hespress or Morocco World News should be considered unreliable, that should be demonstrated with evidence. Otherwise, they should be evaluated on their actual editorial practices and reputation within their region, rather than being judged against a list that is primarily Western-focused. Datamanager3000 (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Hespress, Yabiladi, and Morocco World News are among the most widely recognized and referenced media outlets in Morocco." And Fox News is among the most widely recognized and referenced news outlets in the United States. Low and behold, we consider it mostly unreliable per WP:RSP. And I never said that a source HAS to be on RSP or VG/S, but it is a good idea. Especially for BLPs, where it is recommended to only use the strongest sourcing available and sources that are low-quality in any fashion should be disregarded. Either way though, you haven't proven how any of the sources are reliable or useful at all. I gave my evidence and Grayfell provided his input as well. Please prove in your own words how they are reliable sources by our standards. λ NegativeMP1 06:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Morocco World News source uses very strange and simple English. I cannot find anything on that page about its editing standards or fact-checking/corrections or similar. How does this outlet meet WP:RS? Same question about LGAMING.MA.

Hespress is slightly better, but again, who are its editors? Le Matin (Morocco) seems to be a legit newspaper, but it's a passing mention, at best.

The Yabiladi source doesn't appear to mention Ilyas El Maliki, making it useless for notability even if it were reliable. Grayfell (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Yabiladi.com uses machine translation to plagiarize articles from other outlets. For example this article Euractiv.com is beat-for-beat copied by Yabiladi.com's version, but significantly worse in just about every way. The site has no indication of editorial oversight or fact checking. It likely shouldn't be cited on Wikipedia at all. Grayfell (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this source from a outlet called Le 360 is a single sentence and a photo followed by a bunch of social media posts. It's not useful for notability. Grayfell (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Ilyas El Maliki is a well-known and influential figure in the fields of streaming and digital media. His success goes beyond video games, extending into sports and even fashion. Being named "Moroccan Influencer of the Year" in 2025 is clear evidence of his significance in the media landscape. This achievement has been documented by reputable and independent sources such as Hespress, Yabiladi, and Morocco World News, which cover his success in detail, including his contract with the streaming platform Kick and his participation in the Kings World Cup.

On the other hand, the argument to remove the article due to legal issues or conflicts with other individuals lacks any solid foundation. Indeed, every individual faces challenges throughout their career, but Ilyas has proven through his achievements and his global recognition that he deserves his place in the encyclopedia. Many people follow and interact with him across social media platforms, and he is widely acknowledged as a public figure of prominence.

Keeping the article would be a reasonable step to maintain accurate and factual documentation about a prominent figure who has had a significant impact both locally and internationally. According to the guidelines of the encyclopedia, articles about public figures who have a broad influence and notable achievements should remain in the database. Hkatib (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)— Hkatib (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Notice: The above user is currently a suspected sock-puppet and their argument is based on ideas proven false by both me and Grayfell. Also, there is no mention of sports and fashion in this article. This comment is quite literally just making stuff up. λ NegativeMP1 06:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

he's also had "such a significant impact" internationally that NO MEDIA TALKS about him overseas... Literally no coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the discussion was negatively impacted by the behavior of the creator of the article, but the topic is notable I believe, especially when searching in non-English sources (consider that English is neither a native language nor the primary foreign language in Morocco). I was in fact planning to write an article about him at some point, as he's undoubtedly hands down the most famous Moroccan streamer. None of the explicitly linked sources below mention him just in passing. Some of them are from websites of famous Moroccan newspapers (such as L'Opinion, Alalam and Al Ahdath Al Maghribia), in addition to known non-Moroccan source such Al-Arabiya and The New Arab. I also tried to avoid blog-like sites and purely tabloid news, and keep only international and national, rather than regional sources.

English sources: hespress.com 1, hespress.com 2 (more articles about him on hespress.com), walaw, MWN (more about him on MWN), Assahafa.com

French sources: L'Opinion 1, L'Opinion 2 (more about him on L'Opinion's website), Linformation.ma, le360.ma 1 (link dead), le360.ma 2 (more on le360.ma), lesinfos.ma, médias24.com, lodj.ma 1, lodj.ma 2, h24info.ma 1, h24info.ma 2, h24info.ma 3 (more on h24info.ma), walaw, bladi.net, primesynergy.ma, lenew.ma, footdumaroc, fr.hespress.com

Arabic sources: alaraby.co.uk, almashhad.com, hibapress.com, goud.ma 1, goud.ma 2 (more about him on goud.ma), alkhaleej.ae, various Arabic articles about Ilyas El Malki on hespress.com, ar.le360.ma, alalam.ma, al3omk.com, lesiteinfo.com, ahdath.info, barlamane.com, aljarida24.com, alarabiya.net, rue20.com, febrayer.com, assabah.ma

Spanish source

Dutch source

--Ideophagous (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

additional links: araby.co.uk 2, araby.co.uk 3 --Ideophagous (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd welcome a source review of recently added sources to this AFD earlier today. We have diverging opinions here about these sources from Morocco but these new sources are coming from a variety of countries.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The laundry list of sources above only seem to link to the main page for the various news outlets, not any specific article about this person. I spot checked the first four in the French list, they're of no use. Oaktree b (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The links somehow stopped working or I didn't copy them properly. I'm re-posting the first 2 French sources here again (and also correcting them at the original location): 1, 2. French source n°3 links to the search page of "L'Opinion" with the keywords "ilyas el maliki" since I didn't want to spam this page with more sources than necessary. French source n°4 actually works. I would suggest checking the rest before forming a final opinion. Ideophagous (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

French source number three talks about him briefly, signing a contract. It's not significant coverage. None of these are helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The additional sources provided by @Ideophagous strengthen the case for notability, particularly in non-English media, which is important given that English is neither a native nor primary foreign language in Morocco. The subject meets WP:GNG as there is significant, independent coverage across multiple reliable sources.

The sources include established Moroccan newspapers such as L'Opinion, le 360 and Medias24, as well as well-known international outlets like The New Arab and Al Araby. These are recognized as reliable sources for covering public figures in the region. The coverage is substantial and not just passing mentions, with multiple reports on his streaming career, legal issues, and involvement in the 2025 Kings World Cup Nations.

It's true that some of links @Ideophagous mentioned in his early message only led to the main page of the listed source, but his new message is better organized with all the links leading to articles about Ilyas El Maliki.

Thus, the breadth of coverage across different languages and media types confirms that the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability standards. The article should be kept. Datamanager3000 (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is your third time voting keep on this discussion. And your wording across all of them is repeating the exact same points. It's starting to come off as WP:BLUDGEON-ing the process. See WP:AFDFORMAT: "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others but do not repeat a bolded recommendation on a new bulleted line." λ NegativeMP1 06:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Spent four months in prison [9] and was acquitted of other charges. Doesn't meet criminal notability, and there is no coverage outside of the trial that would meet notability for a streamer. There doesn't seem to be anything about this person outside of the trial. Oaktree b (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b There's plenty, not just the prison sentence:
- Most famous streamer in Morocco
- He was arrested and on trial several times, and went to prison
- Wide coverage due to his crucial involvement in Morocco's participation in the 2025 Kings World Cup Nations.
The links above cover all 3 aspects of the topic. My opinion is that this is sufficient for notability. Feel free to check again for yourself. Ideophagous (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm reorganizing the list of links I posted above, to highlight the aspects supporting notability (in my opinion), and make it easier for other participants to navigate. I just don't think this topic should be dismissed so easily and quickly, and as I mentioned already, I think there are 3 main aspects that make this person notable (last aspect split to two because there are too many sources):

Streaming:
- Named Moroccan Influencer of the Year (en), top viewed streamer (fr)
- Other streaming-related news: 1, 2, 3
Arrest, trial and imprisonment (my understanding is that he went to prison twice, one time for 3 months, and another for 4 months shortened to 2 months):
- English: leaving prison and Kings League, 2, 3
- French: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
- Arabic: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
- Dutch: 1
Coverage due to the 2025 Kings World Cup Nations:
- English sources: 1, 2, 3
- French: 1, 2, 3, 4
- Arabic: 1, 2
- Spanish: 1
Coverage due to the Kings League in general:
- English sources: 1, 2
- French: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Mixed coverage focused on Ilyas El Maliki: araby.co.uk, almashhad, le360.ma, alahdath

Ideophagous (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted one more time, so that the sources listed by Ideophagous can be evaluated by the other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

French sources are mostly reprints of a large photo of the person that looks like it was source from social media and barely half a page of text about him... Source 5 for the 4th point is a whole two sentences, source 6 is a bit longer, but not by much. French sources in the third point are barely a sentence about each player on the team. The Streamer of the year news links given are barely a few sentences each. None of these are SIGCOV... We can barely piece together enough for a stub article, there just isn't about this person. Might have notability with the streamer of the year award, but I doubt we'd even look at that as a notable award. What we have are brief one or two line mentions about this person, with social media reposts that take up more space than the actual text talking about this person. We can't use any of these too build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please give us with your best three sources, that's generally what we look for in AfD. Which are the strongest, most extensive sources that would show this person warrants an article? Oaktree b (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Oaktree b These two Arabic sources are probably the best ones that focus on the person himself, and cover the 3 aforementioned aspects (trials/arrest, Kings League, streaming success), though they don't delve deep in each one: 1, 2. This English source focuses on the Kings League. The rest of the sources are mostly not bad though, and could help by supplementing more details of each aspect. Note that I did not include any regional sources (news websites focused on specific regions or cities), which tend to be a bit amateurish. The thing is, the coverage of this person is undoubtedly wide within Morocco, with a few sources from MENA and worldwide. The only question is whether their content has enough quality to warrant an article. Ideophagous (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Le Journal de Tangers is one of the oldest newspapers in the country, and they have zero coverage about this individual [10]. If there's nothing there about this person, this should be further proof that he's not eligible for an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the most widely known though, as it's local to Tangier. I think nationally distributed newspapers like L'Opinion, Le Matin and Al-Alam are a better to measure whether there's enough national level coverage of this topic. Note that both L'Opinion (see 1, 2) and Al-Alam (which has a single article about him) have covered his case and/or his participation in the Kings League. Le Matin covered the Kings League, but they only mention him in passing (1 and 2). Al Ahdath Al Maghribia has some coverage as well (example, though most of it is of tabloid nature). Ideophagous (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elenite

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

Doesn't reach WP:NCORP; a black sea resort referenced only by a travel website: exclusively promotional. I had placed a PROD, but this was contented on the grounds "I think it's notable as a quasi-populated place". I don't think that a resort should be assessed as a 'populated place', but rather as a business. Unable to find reliable sources discussing this resort; other language versions don't seem to help either. Klbrain (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soft keep. As per my removal of the PROD. This is a holiday resort area of around 10 hotels, all or most of which are owned by a single company. Its status is indeed debatable: in 2005 it was listed by the Bulgarian government as a "settlement of national importance", but this was revoked by a court. The area does have the status of a "climatic sea resort of local importance", but under the name Kuzluka (which is unknown to the wider public, unlike the name Elenite) and bundled in together with the nearby Sveti Vlas. The resort has been mentioned in The Sun and Daily Mail. — Toдor Boжinov — 08:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Settlements and administrative regions says:
Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Census tracts, abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. Also, if the class of division is not notable (e.g. townships in certain US states) its members are not notable either, even though technically recognized in law. The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), which says:
Notability on Wikipedia is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. Geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Therefore, the notability of some geographical features (places, roadways, objects, etc.) may be called into question.

Sources
1. Shishkova, Elena; Ivanova, Maria; Dimova, Rosit︠s︡a (1998). Destination, Bulgaria. Burgas: Selekta. p. 106. ISBN 978-954-8371-490. Retrieved 2025-03-02 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Elenite Holiday Village which opened in 1985. It is roughly divided into two colonies of two-storey villas clustered around amenities one would normally expect to find in a classy holiday centre. Situated between a mountain massif and the sea shore around a large bay the villas face a beautiful stretch of clean sandy beach and the sparkling blue sea. Like the other holiday villages Elenite has sprung up to meet the growing demand for holidays of more privacy and comfort. This is exactly what the self-contained villas offer. Each comprises two large and well-appointed sea-facing studios, with a terrace on the ground floor and a balcony on the first one. The studios have separate entrances and are more or less of the same design. But the villas in zone A unlike those in zone B, have kitchenettes with cooking facilities. The Emona Hotel is perched on a hill in the north-eastern part of the village. Although it is called a hotel, it consists of villa accommodation like the rest of the village. It has its own reception area and other amenities including an attractive restaurant and a day bar. A new hotel in the northern part has just opened and another one, much larger, is being built in the southern part. The two zones of villas share a reception located in the Service Centre which comprises restaurants with indoor and outdoor dining, conference halls, bars, a gym, etc. The speciality restaurant The Fishing Net (Talyana) in the centre of the village tempts tourists with fish dishes. The Old Oak Tavern (Stariyat Dub) is attractively designed and offers a varied selection of wines and beers. For those who prefer preparing their own meals Elenite has a well-stocked supermarket in the shopping centre. Elenite is superbly equipped for sports enthusiasts. It has a sea-water pool for adults and another one for children, a sauna, three tennis courts, a gym."
2. "Bulgaria". Sofia Press Agency. 1986. p. 28. Retrieved 2025-03-02 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "Elenite Tired of the tall concrete towers called hotels, of the queues outside lifts, of the crowded beaches and bars, all considered to be the 'comforts of big holiday resorts all over the world, the modern tourist started dreaming of Crusoe's island ... at least for the limited duration of his holiday. But how could he get this? Specialists saw the answer in building holiday villages located amidst exotic scenery. "Why did you choose Elenite for your holiday? " I asked Mr and Mrs Kvarken, a young Finnish couple whom I met on the beach. "We were looking for peace and quiet, and found it here, in addition to rare, exotic surrounding. We feel quite at home." The formula "less people, more peace", in the felicitous combination of a picturesque setting and original architecture, this is the Elenite holiday village in a nutshell. It is situated 15 km away from the old town of Nessebur, just where the oak-clad slopes of the Balkan Range descend gently towards the Black Sea. The village boasts fine conditions for holidaymakers—the beach is to the south, sheltered by the mountains to the north, in addition to the pleasant meadows cut by the rocky bed of the river Kozloushka. After interest was expressed by foreign tourist firms, the Bulgarian Association for Tourism and Recreation signed an agreement with the Finnish and French firms Matkarengas and Tourisme et Travail to build a holiday village accommodating 2,000 to the east of the river. It was built jointly by Bulgarian and Finnish construction workers, and welcomed its first visitors in 1985. The village is a far cry from the traditional resorts consisting of Sunlight is equally caressing at the beach and in fro of the bungalo Though there are no sharks special pools have been built for the naughty children where they can swim to their heart's content while mum and dad are having the time of their life in the sea."
3. Dinchev, Evgeniĭ (2001). A Guide to Bulgaria. Sofia: Alexander Tour. pp. 303, 313. ISBN 978-954-9942-18-7. Retrieved 2025-03-02 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Elenite is a resort situated east of Slunchev Bryag (Sunny Beach) at the beginning of an eight-kilometre long no through road. It is 50 km north of Bourgas and 442 km east of Sofia. The nearest village is Vlas. In the past it was given the name of a monastery destroyed by the Turks. The resort complex consists of one-family bungalows and villas surrounded by lush green vegetation. The whole complex is designed as a park and offers deluxe holidays. This small separate settlement has its own private beach, several luxurious restaurants, sports facilities and equipment for water sports, tennis-court. ... One can get to Elenite by minibus from Slunchev Bryag or by taxi, but most frequently holiday-makers come here in their own cars. velop and practice all water sports using the services of coaches, facilities and equipment, horse riding with coaches, water slides, a policlinic, and several big shopping centres for food, clothes and souvenirs. There is an amphitheatre with more than 1000 seats. Accommodation: The most famous are Kuban Hotel, Bourgas Hotel and Diamond Hotel. The hotels Delta, Amphora, Zephyr, and Esperanto in the Black Sea Complex that is part of the resort. The two camping sites — Emona and Slunchev Bryag (Sunny Beach) cover a large area and therefore the sites there are practically unlimited. There are also bungalows in the camps, and these can only be reserved in advance."
4. Bousfield, Jonathan; Richardson, Dan (1999). Bulgaria: The Rough Guide. London: Rough Guides. p. 352. ISBN 1-85828-422-8. Retrieved 2025-03-02 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Buses continue northwards to the Elenite Holiday Village, 6km further up the coast, a predominantly package destination divided into two villa colonies sharing restaurants, bars and discos. It's a well-run, well-looked after resort with a good beach, good sporting facilities, and childcare provision in a central kindergarten, although it can seem rather isolated if you’re after more than just a beach holiday. A central reception desk (#0554/82423, fax 85147) allocates rooms, although costs are high for independent travellers, with prices of around $70 per person per day in the high season — meals, daytime drinks and entertainment are all included, though. The villas themselves come with cable TV, fridge and kitchenette (although the choice of food in the local store is limited, making the idea of self-catering unappealing)."
5. Tanner, Adam; Watson, Ian; Schrag, Zachary; Kaplan, Andrew (1995) [1987]. Frommer's Budget Travel Guide: Eastern Europe on $30 a Day (5 ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishers. p. 126. ISBN 0-02860092-4. ISSN 1044-7792. Retrieved 2025-03-02 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Northeast of Sunny Beach at the end of a dead-end road is the resort of Elenite, a favorite of Western Europeans on the coast for comfortable facilities and a peaceful setting. Unlike the mass of hotels across the Bulgarian coast, Elenite is an imaginative modern complex built by Finns and opened in 1985. Villas with two to four rooms spread out on a hill overlooking the seaside account for most of the lodgings here; there’s also a conventional hotel with 46 rooms. Villa rooms are decorated with terra-cotta tiles and blond-wood furniture, and have large balconies. Half the villa rooms have small kitchenettes with sinks and fridges but no stoves. ... Facilities: Several food stores, restaurants, and discos operate in the village complex. At the hotel’s private beach you can rent Windsurfers and umbrellas. There’s also a gym, swimming pool, sauna, and tennis court. A variety of excursions can be booked from the office in the main lobby, such as an all-day excursion ..."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Elenite to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no real clue how to assess this one - Cunard's sources are all travel guides, which I don't think necessarily count towards significant coverage and certainly don't towards WP:NCORP. It's also not clear as to whether it's a village under WP:NGEO or a collection of businesses under WP:NCORP. What I do know is the article does not currently pass WP:GNG, since we can't assume the travel guides are secondary or independent (#2 might be the best, but it's potentially promotional.) SportingFlyer T·C 06:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete wikipedia is not a travel guide and this isnt even obviously the name of the location. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sofia Press Agency 1986 notes, "After interest was expressed by foreign tourist firms, the Bulgarian Association for Tourism and Recreation signed an agreement with the Finnish and French firms Matkarengas and Tourisme et Travail to build a holiday village accommodating 2,000 to the east of the river." As a holiday village, Elenite falls under Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Settlements and administrative regions, which says, "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." The travel guides are independent of the subject. The sources provide significant coverage about Elenite's history and facilities, showing it meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purcell, Indiana

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

Given that the road which crosses the tracks at this point is (acto Google) called Purcell Station Rd., I think it's safe to deem this a rail point, especially since the station building itself shows up in a 1958 aerial. Mangoe (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A search of the Baker|Emerson|Cauthorn county history takes one directly to Jonathan, John, Noah, and finally Andrew Purcell, the farmer whose farm is where Purcell Station was located in Johnson Township. It was a railway station, on the Evansville & Terre Haute Railroad, and a post-office, named for the Purcells. The Greene county history adds that this was all about melon farming, and lists the E&THR railway stations on v. 1 p. 370.
And Baker of course already said that this was a railway station and a post-office. But Baker also claims that this was a village too. Which is contradicted outright by the Greene county history, which on v. 1 p. 380 explains that all of those melons may have been shipped from Purcell's Station (as it was actually spelled), but the "hamlet" was the "thickly settled" St Thomas. Yes, Saint Thomas, Indiana (AfD discussion). So guess what's coming up for that AFD discussion! ☺
There's no village of Purcell in Knox. Not only would Greene's 1911 History have caught that, but the Steinwehr 1873 gazetteer records Purcell's (again, properly spelled) as a post-office in Knox, and the 1880 Lippincott's records it (properly spelled as well) as a post-office on the (renamed) E&CR. The icing on this cake is that we even have the 1876 atlas with a little square blob on the railroad line.
There should be a list of the railway stations in the E&THR article, and this should just take one there, and not be categorized or navigation templated or listed in the county/township as a GNIS cop-out "unincorporated community" when we even know the name of the farmer.
Uncle G (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never a community in the sense required by GEOLAND. I don't think a redirect to Evansville & Terre Haute Railroad or elsewhere is warranrted because as Uncle G has shown above the actual name was Purcell's Station. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Table of metaheuristics

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

Per WP:NLIST.

Some of the items (e.g. Genetic Algorithm) indeed have notability.

Otherwise, notability the list is not shown. Are there any mentions of metaheuristic algorithms as a group other than a reason to introduce another one, or to take action on unchecked creation of such algorithms?

As metaheuristic algorithms still continue to be introduced at a pace of (conservatively) dozens per year, this list is arbitrary in nature, which is another argument for not having it.

For more context, there is an attempt to have such a listing elsewhere, also lagging behind the current state.

Another possible course of action is to clean the list up (to those algorithms with a Wiki page) and merge into the main article.

Neodiprion demoides (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete, as there is no overarching citation that discusses metaheuristic algorithms as such. Perhaps "optimisation" would cover much of it. Without that, the article is close to WP:SYNTH. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Optimization is too broad for this topic. If new ones are introduced, only major should be listed or some classification of them should be described (i.e. improve). Solar Apex (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that without any citation that describes the topic as a whole, WP:SYNTH --- i.e. WP:OR applies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas mackenbrock

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

Notability. All cites & c are run of the mill coverage related to the jobs that be performs. Just a bloke doing his job. TheLongTone (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Skynxnex (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I believe that Thomas Mackenbrock meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria as a key executive in the global customer experience (CX) industry. He has held top leadership positions at internationally recognized companies, including Bertelsmann, Arvato, and Majorel (where he was CEO), and now serves as Deputy CEO of Teleperformance since October 2024.

His role in the creation and expansion of Majorel, as well as the high-profile Teleperformance-Majorel merger, has been covered by independent and reliable media. These sources highlight his strategic influence on the industry, beyond just holding executive positions.

Furthermore, he is reportedly expected to become the next CEO of Teleperformance in the coming weeks, which will further solidify his global business impact. I plan to update the article with this information as soon as it is officially confirmed.

Additionally, Thomas Mackenbrock is already mentioned in several Wikipedia pages, including [Majorel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorel) and [Teleperformance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleperformance). His name appears in these articles as a major figure in these organizations, further reinforcing his notability.

I am also adding additional independent sources from international financial and business media to further establish his notability.

Given these factors, I request that the deletion process be reconsidered while I improve the article.

Thank you Mohamed Mounadi (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Title casing evasion; see Draft:Thomas Mackenbrock, where another version of this article exists. Please continue to work on this article there. Nathannah • 📮 17:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per declined submission at Draft:Thomas Mackenbrock. 162 etc. (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the article to Thomas Mackenbrock in the meantime. Regardless of the outcome here, there is no reason to keep the lowercase m. 162 etc. (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Simmons

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

not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies LusikSnusik (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LusikSnusik (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updates made to confirm notability, including reliable national sources Rochambeau1783 (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For context, Florida county sheriffs are county officers and a part of the state judicial branch, serving all writs, processes, and warrants of the state supreme court and state circuit court in their county.[11] Rochambeau1783 (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Police, and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: County official. The sources present are not about him but incidents he gave press releases on. If more sources that are GNG-worthy are found, I would appreciate a ping. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 16:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Mitchell (politician)

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

not notable, need more reliable sources LusikSnusik (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LusikSnusik (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON. Fails NPOL#1 and #2. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 16:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. BD2412 T 20:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:NPOL Wozal (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QuillBot

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

lacks significant independent coverage from reliable sources, making it difficult to establish its notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. LusikSnusik (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. LusikSnusik (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Software. Skynxnex (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Course Hero, its current parent company and what it's now been blended into. Nathannah • 📮 18:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Abbas charitable foundation

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

AI generated spam that that is little more than an advertisement masquerading as an article. Article focus bounces back and forth from "Al Abbas" and his multiple companies/foundations/etc. Copy and paste moved to mainspace. However, let's just cut right to notability and not bother sending this back to draft space:

Non-notable lawyer who fails the GNG or ANYBIO.

All the sources are routine news coverage about things the subject may have truly been involved in, but there is no in-depth significant coverage that warrants a standalone article. Nominating delete, no time in the draftspace will salvage an article where the subject is not notable. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Business. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobby Cohn I already started a discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al abbas charitable foundation. Whats weird is that it seems that there are two articles on the same subject, just with different capitalization. Gaismagorm (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaismagorm: Of course there are, that doesn't surprise me given the article history. Procedurally this has become quite a mess, one article could be BLAR'ed to the other and we can consolidate AfDs. If someone uninvolved wants to close this one, I'll copy and paste my argument over there. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for what it's worth, the articles aren't identical. This one seems to be more focused on the (now indeffed) author/namesake of the organization while the other does tend to focus more on the foundation itself. Bobby Cohn (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dang. I didn't really read over the other version, not gonna lie, I was just assuming it was the same since the title was the same and it would kind of fit. Gaismagorm (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

9th Wonder of the World

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

Found no reliable sources for this album. Witchdoctor (rapper) is a redirect to Dungeon Family which does not mention this album at all and doesn't seem like a good redirect target. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Georgia (U.S. state). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, empty redirect to Wonders of the World Completely non-notable album, but a very proper WP:ATD. Nathannah • 📮 18:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

US itek

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

Fails WP:NCORP. There is some routine coverage in WP:TRADES like [12] but it is not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Gheus (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al abbas charitable foundation

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

Completely fails the notability requirements for organizations, and the article is completely uncategorized and written in a promotional way. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Education, and Maharashtra. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because of course this article has two versions of the article in the mainspace given its history and attempts at WP:GAMENAME, this was duplicated. I'll copy and paste my deletion rational from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Abbas charitable foundation:

AI generated spam that that is little more than an advertisement masquerading as an article. Article focus bounces back and forth from "Al Abbas" and his multiple companies/foundations/etc. Copy and paste moved to mainspace. However, let's just cut right to notability and not bother sending this back to draft space:

Non-notable lawyer who fails the GNG or ANYBIO.

All the sources are routine news coverage about things the subject may have truly been involved in, but there is no in-depth significant coverage that warrants a standalone article. Nominating delete, no time in the draftspace will salvage an article where the subject is not notable.

Summarily delete as non-notable, don't bother sending this back to the draft space. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, 100% LLM generated promotional spam, and same for the other AfD as well. (Also why is there two??) Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 18:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
there was (for some reason) two diffferent articles under different capitalization. It's weird. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem Demsas

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Lacks direct and in-depth coverage in independent secondary sources. Self-auhtored articles are not enough to prove her notability. Gheus (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

Multiple references show significant, not trivial, coverage in independent secondary sources, discussing her early life (references 1-5), professional career and her views and contributions to the discussion of the housing crisis. An important notability factor (WP:AUTHOR) relies on the following: The person's work (or works) has won significant critical attention. Her book has received has significant critical attention, including book reviews in major sites including Vox and Bloomberg News (ref 9), which stated that Demsas "has distinguished herself within the supply-side camp." References 8 & 9 show she is "known for originating a significant new concept," further enhancing her notability per WP:NAUTHOR. Her work has led to multiple high profile interviews, including on Bloomberg (ref. 9), NPR (ref. 11) and Ezra Klein's NYTimes interview (ref. 12), indicating her work has had significant attention. Included in the article were her opinions on the housing crisis; there is no Wikipedia injunction against discussing a subject's views. There is no Wikipedia injunction against using the subject's self-authored published works in reputable publications to verify the information presented. The references discussed above were used to verify Demsas' views, not to establish notability. And, only 4/18 references even fall within that purview. In brief: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (Wikipedia:Notability (people)). The article meets all criteria.

I note that the first reviewer (Ipigott]) did not see a problem with this article, and later removed a tag stating that this article may not achieve notability, claiming that "del tag - no longer applicable." Mwinog2777 (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Georges

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

Declined prod. The only source added was a database. Still lacking SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Haiti. LibStar (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on WP:NEXIST. Context for procedural keep: Over 45 articles all in the same narrow topic (Olympic-level track and field competitors) have been brought to AfD or PRODed this month, as compared to a typical one or two per week otherwise. It takes significant effort to do a complete source search for each of these, most of which aren't in English and are from the pre-Internet era from countries that have not digitized their national archives yet. If a sweeping argument should be made, then make that as a mass nomination, but otherwise these need to be more spread out. Having this many individual AfDs open at once about these historical figures sets up an insurmountable task.

NEXIST rationale: Hatian newspapers from the time period haven't been checked yet, we would expect coverage because Georges was Haiti's only 200m sprinter to qualify for the Olympics in a 16-year period from 1960 to 1976. Other avenue for sourcing: We know that Olympedia's image was found by Enric Pla and appears to be of Georges in training. Where was the image originally taken or published – did it originate from Hatian coverage of the subject? Contacting Pla would be a good start. --Habst (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image is from Tumblr, a picture of the 1970 Haiti national volleyball team, which he was also apparently a member. Maybe we could message "Haiti Legends Tumblr" to see if the poster of the image is familiar with Georges? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually cut and paste the same patronising procedural keep argument into every discussion? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartaz, just to be clear, the PROD rationale "Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY." was actually copy-pasted nearly 100 times over the last month with no evidence of having done WP:BEFORE, as shown in WP:Articles for deletion/Chae Hong-nak and WP:Articles for deletion/Adalberto García. Sorry to patronize and I'm interested in hearing out the merits of each case, but a process needs to be followed. --Habst (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cherry picked 2 examples out of 100. Most have been redirected. In any case some have been deleted and disregarded your NEXIST argument. LibStar (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Habst, where are the sources? As others have said we're not interested in you recycling your NEXIST argument. LibStar (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar, "Most have been redirected" – this actually isn't true by a simple count of the above linked list, but even if it was – you aren't nominating them for redirection, you're nominating them for deletion. If you think they should be redirected, then you should make that clear in your nomination.

The sources would be in Hatian newspapers or magazines, like the one that likely published the photo of the subject that Haiti Legends found. I've done a thorough search for all of the AfDs I've commented in, but for some categories of articles like pre-Internet athletes from Haiti that just isn't enough. We need to do a physical media search or ask someone with physical media to upload it online. --Habst (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shame your close adherence to process doesn’t go as far to respecting the new consensus and helping to clean up those articles that either need to be deleted or listified. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shame your close adherence to process doesn’t go as far to ... helping to clean up those articles – Actually, Habst has done a very extensive amount of work cleaning up articles in poor shape like this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I happily stand corrected and apologise to Habst, but I stand by my argument that in cases like this we should be routinely redirecting until the sources are found instead of needing to hold discussions for everyone. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Athletics at the 1972 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metres as country article appears not to exist. Says it all really, not sourced… Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Haiti at the 1972 Summer Olympics – As WP:ATD. I'm also not opposed if redirected to Athletics at the 1972 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metres. Svartner (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, we can't base an article on photographs or that a person might be contacted. Volleyball team members are not automatically notable either. Geschichte (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 redirect targets have been suggested. LibStar (talk) 06:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some support for Keeping, a number of different Redirect target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Haiti at the 1972 Summer Olympics. Per nom, the subject lacks WP:SIGCOV and does not meet WP:SPORTSCRIT or WP:NOLY. His performance at the 1972 Olympics certainly does not merit a standalone article. The information is repeated anyway in the target article, so I think a redirect is appropriate here.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't see the country article but it's a better target. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belly rub

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

Barely more than a WP:DICTDEF; poorly sourced to a series of blogs; created by a user who is under a community ban from creating new articles (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1171#User:Pek continuing to mass create poor-quality stubs after ban expiry WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed comment about violating ban; the ban went into effect after this article was created. The rest of the issues stand. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Emotion in animals. — Maile (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment Why is this article limited to dogs? Should it be expanded to a belly rub for any kind of animal or even humans? There is no head pat article. Moritoriko (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Body language of dogs. I'd rather keep it, because all good dogs deserve a belly rub, but there's not a lot of good and on-point sources on Google. Ping me if you rescue this. Bearian (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If the article would stay as it is. then yes I would agree with Bearian for it to be merged to Body language of dogs, now if it is to be considered as a standalone article, then I would agree with the idea of Moritoriko to expand it for other animals as well, I mean just do a google search for Belly rubs for Pigs, and you'd get substantial hits too for potential article materialVillkomoses (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Body language of dogs, but perhaps consider converting this particular page into some sort of disambiguation per Moritoriko. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not find any good sources for this. I searched G-Scholar and G-Books hoping to find something at least approaching scientific. The sources I did find, like the ones in this article, have no basis in fact. Lamona (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If its not sourced it does not merit an article and why would we merged unsourced material to degrade the proposed target? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"If". Herostratus (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good dog. Good boy! Herostratus (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: Sounds a lot like WP:ILIKEIT. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Do I get a biscuit? Herostratus (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No biscuit? Am I... a... a... bad boy? Nah. Mom says I'm a good boy. Anyway, getting serious, let's think this thru like the good boys and girls we are. So, I am sticking with keep as my vote, altho I would be OK with merge with Body language of dogs, or a retitle to "Belly rubs in animals" or something, setting up for an expansion. Body language of dogs is not too long. Shorter articles and more of them, longer ones and fewer -- a matter of taste. As long as the material and the usable refs are kept. (Merges are supposed to be with the Suggest Merge template actually, but that dog is long gone in the teeth.)

So, looking at the refs... There are seven. The first is by a "certified dog behavior expert and writer with a decade of hands-on experience in dog training and canine aggression. She is a member of the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants" (she says). The second is an anon page on a commercial site. The third was reviewed by a veterinarian who (says she) has some decent credentials. The fourth is by a "pet mom" who (says she) publishes pieces about animals a lot, for whatever that is worth but she's not a hobo. The fifth is an anon page, but it's on a dog-training-company site and you'd have to think they'd know something about the subject and a business motive not to say wrong things. The sixth is another anon page, but the site is only a dog boarding/grooming operation, so probably not usable. The seventh doesn't devolve.

The first and third are clearly fine. The fifth is fine to, given how its nature and context; you could tag it for better source I suppose. The others, no. But the first and third and fifth contain plenty of info to ref a fine article on the subject. And Google does come up with more right off; my first result is from the American Kennel Club which I would think would be quite reliable. It does have "There has yet to be any scientific research on why dogs love belly rubs" (good to know and worthwhile reporting) but right after has "Dr. Stanley Coren, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of British Columbia and author of How to Speak Dog, believes it’s simply another way of socially connecting with your pet. 'For some dogs, a belly rub is simply a variant of being petted. It is a form of social contact. The fur on the belly is usually less dense and softer, so the sense of being touched is less muted'" which is plenty good enough for us, we are not a hard science entity. We would want to be like "According to Stanley Coren...". We can trust the Kennel Club to be reporting his words accurately.

Regarding notability, couple things. If you're married to WP:GNG (I'm not; it's quite a good data point to begin deeper consideration tho), recall that the GNG only requires two sources that are more than a passing mention in a sentence, which all of these are. None of them are Time magazine, but the WP:GNG doesn't require or even mention notability of the source, only reliability, which several are.

Beyond that, stepping away from the screen and gazing at the tea leaves of rules, into the real 3D world, of course it's a notable subject. Everybody knows what belly rubs are, and millions do them every day, and talk about then, and doubtless many people would like to know about them -- why do dogs like it, which dogs like it, do some cultures not do it, and so on, including finding pointers to refs with more info. Just the sort of thing a very large general-readership encyclopedia would want to cover, yes? And it is part of the general subject of human-dog interaction which is not Squiddly Diddly. It is not trivial. And it not ephemera, quite the opposite: people will want to research the subject as long as there are dogs and people. It's an asset to the project and exactly what we are supposed to be doing as we continue to grow. Herostratus (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Herostratus. I have added as a source an article called "Give your cat a belly rub at your own risk"." The topic of belly rubs meets WP:GNG with online sources - checking books about dogs as pets would provide more (eg Siberian Huskies For Dummies p96 [13]). RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus and different Merge/Redirect target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Petting of animals and expand to an article on that subject. I thought we would have an article on this, but Petting redirects (questionably) to Making out, and the closest thing that we have in the hatnote for that article is Social grooming, which is mostly about animals petting each other. Humans pet and stroke animals, as a notable phenomenon, and we appear to have no article specifically on that phenomenon, which we should. BD2412 T 23:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move I agree 100% with User:BD2412 above. I will start finding sources about human -> animal petting Moritoriko (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Milton (Southend-on-Sea ward)

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

As er previous discussions at Wikiproject UK Geography, wards do not come under WP:NPLACE, and such must meet WP:GNG. This article does not meet GNG, as it only has two supplies of reference, 1. Southend-on-Sea City Council electoral records which are not independent, ans 2. A Thesis of electiral results from Plymouth University which clearly does not meet GNG, being it is a list of results Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasons as given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chalkwell (Southend-on-Sea ward). MRSC (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But how does it neet GNG. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia not a Gazetter and this article is just a list of local election results, which is not encyclopedic. None of the references are anything but official results or results that have been collated from official results. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I find the delete arguments very week per Wikipedia:Gazetteer which I happily endorse. But am not sure whether or not this page makes sense as a separate article. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is just an essay, which is not an official guideline of Wikipedia. User:MRSC has stated that the page does not meet the SNG WP:NPLACE in previous chat, and as per the RfC 2 years ago, the Gazetter part of Wikipedia is highly contested when it comes to just data. As a separate page they don't meet the SNG, as discussed at the Wikiproject with a consensus reached, so must meet GNG, which they don't. It is impossible to transfer this data to the related settlement, which then you could argue would mean that the Settlement meets GNG, the data is then a Gazetter, but as this ward crosses both the boundary of [[Southend-on-Sea][ and Westcliff-on-Sea I don't think it is possible. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note The ward has existed since 1910, not the 1970s as claimed in the article, so those looking for sources ought to go back further. See the Scheme for the alteration of Ward Boundaries and the apportioning of Councillors among the New Wards made in pursuance of the Southend-on-Sea Corporation Act 1909.----Pontificalibus 14:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Milton was the name of the settlement that is now known as Westcliff-on-Sea, but the ward now is across both Westcliff-on-Sea and Southend-on-Sea. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had always understood these to be notable under NPLACE as they are Populated, legally recognized places. They are created by Acts of Parliament and Statutory Instruments so they are accurately defined and couldn't be more legally recognised. Whether or not they are subject to change is irrelevant as notability is not temporary. That being said, I have no issue with this being merged into an appropriate article. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wards under NPLACE are not notable. The editor who made returned these pages admits this. This is because wards as per the guideline: "Also, if the class of division is not notable (e.g. townships in certain US states) its members are not notable either". In the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)#Confusing wording of NPLACE most editors state that the general consensus is that this is "generally recognized by the populace as a PLACE. This rules out abstract entities such as irrigation districts, electoral districts, census tracts etc." In addition this editor declared on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Wards "That's why lists of wards are useful. You might struggle to find notability of individual wards but you won't for the wards as a collection. Boundary changes are widely reported and several news outlets cover the results of local elections. Even the nationals publish results of local elections - look at the pages the BBC produce every year. Wards as a collective definitely are notable if not as individuals. My personal view is that wards are individually notable but I can see where consensus is going. Stevie fae Scotland". Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Westborough (ward)

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

The page originally existed under the premise of WP:NPLACE?, but was merged into the settlement Westcliff-on-Sea after a discussion at the UK Geography Wikiproject, where Wards were identified as not meeting NPLACE by concensus. User:MRSC has re-instated them, and as per discussion raised on both the Wikiproject UK and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography, he has stated that this is electoral and so not part of NPLACE. Therefore, the page must meet GNG, to which the references provided are 1. Southend Council electoral results, which is not an independent reference and therefore fails GNG, and 2. a thesus from learners at Plymouth University which is not clearly not enough to meet GNG. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasons as given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chalkwell (Southend-on-Sea ward). MRSC (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But how does it neet GNG. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia not a Gazetter and this article is just a list of local election results, which is not encyclopedic. None of the references are anything but official results or results that have been collated from official results. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe that the delete arguments are very weak per Wikipedia:Gazetteer which I happily endorse. But I am not certain whether this is best as a separate article. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That is just an essay, which is not an official guideline of Wikipedia. User:MRSC has stated that the page does not meet the SNG WP:NPLACE in previous chat, and as per the RfC 2 years ago, the Gazetter part of Wikipedia is highly contested when it comes to just data. As per my original argued this data was moved to the actual article of the settlement and this page become a redirect, but was then moved back and the results then further added to. As a separate page they don't meet the SNG, as discussed at the Wikiproject with a consensus reached, so must meet GNG, which they don't.
Davidstewartharvey (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had always understood these to be notable under NPLACE as they are Populated, legally recognized places. They are created by Acts of Parliament and Statutory Instruments so they are accurately defined and couldn't be more legally recognised. Whether or not they are subject to change is irrelevant as notability is not temporary. That being said, I have no issue with this being merged into an appropriate article. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wards under NPLACE are not notable. The editor who made returned these pages admits this. This is because wards as per the guideline: "Also, if the class of division is not notable (e.g. townships in certain US states) its members are not notable either". In the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)#Confusing wording of NPLACE most editors state that the general consensus is that this is "generally recognized by the populace as a PLACE. This rules out abstract entities such as irrigation districts, electoral districts, census tracts etc." In addition this editor declared on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Wards "That's why lists of wards are useful. You might struggle to find notability of individual wards but you won't for the wards as a collection. Boundary changes are widely reported and several news outlets cover the results of local elections. Even the nationals publish results of local elections - look at the pages the BBC produce every year. Wards as a collective definitely are notable if not as individuals. My personal view is that wards are individually notable but I can see where consensus is going. Stevie fae Scotland". Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chalkwell (Southend-on-Sea ward)

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

The page originally existed under the premise of WP:NPLACE?, but was merged into the settlement Chalkwell after a discussion at the UK Geography Wikiproject, where Wards were identified as not meeting NPLACE by concensus. User:MRSC has re-instated them, and as per discussion raised on both the Wikiproject UK and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography, he has stated that this is electoral and so not part of NPLACE. Therefore, the page must meet GNG, to which the references provided are 1. Southend Council electoral results, which is not an independent reference and therefore fails GNG, and 2. a thesus from learners at Plymouth University which is not clearly not enough to meet GNG.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could the following almost identical nominations be combined with this one to avoid having the same discussion three times?

Thanks. MRSC (talk)

Keep. This article was for deletion in 2019. The result was keep. Since then it has been susbstantially improved, expanded and is well referenced. The description of the outputs of the Elections Centre at Plymouth University as "a thesus from learners" is a misrepresentation. It is quite right that articles should be well referenced and in this case the {{refimprove}} template would have been more appropriate. MRSC (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But how does it neet GNG. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia not a Gazetter and this article is just a list of local election results, which is not encyclopedic. None of the references are anything but official results or results that have been collated from official results. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Securian Financial Group

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

Tagged as possibly a COI article for more than four years - all sources linked are either from the company itself or aren't independent. Could not find reliable and significant sources myself LR.127 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, United States of America, and Minnesota. LR.127 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 144 year-old company. A Fortune 500 company in 2023 and some other years. There are several articles that establish notability: 1, 2, 3, 4, and hundreds of hits at newspapers.com, since the company is so old.98.149.219.81 (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No stance on notability yet, I need some more time to go through the coverage. But the vast majority of the newspaper hits I found were advertisements from the company, and also some marriage announcements / obits of people who had worked there. I can compile some clippings of non-promo coverage later because there was some, but I would not use the number of hits as a metric here. Zzz plant (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anglican Adam Preaching Society

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

Questionable notability, and WP:PROMO problems run too deep that it is probably better to start over from scratch. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 04:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Nigeria. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 04:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as the article has a number of reliable sources references that need detailed evaluation before delete is justified, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Thomas, Indiana

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

There may indeed have been a short-lived post office ehre, but the topos and GMaps make it quite clear that everything here was and is part of the church property. Indeed, a bunch of the topos don't show the church at all, and label the school; the GNIS entry comes from a highway map. Mangoe (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have just come from Purcell, Indiana (AfD discussion) you will know what is going on here. Uncle G (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources found and added to the article by Uncle G are enough to support a brief separate article. Alternately, Redirect to Johnson Township, Knox County, Indiana and incorporate the sources there, but I doubt that is strictly necessary. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Toufa

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SINGER, and the only mention of her music I could find from a reliable source comes from an LA Times covering Tommy Lee's engagement, which is also one of only two sources within the Wikipedia article. Seems like a no-brainer. Melonkunn (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Germany, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added more sources and releases and improved formatting. Rumrtm73 (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, digging deeper, the article does not fail WP:SINGER, as "Sofi Needs a Ladder" that features Sofia literally appeared in UK and Canada's national music charts. The sources that I added complement the article, and it doesn't seem like it fails WP:BASIC either. Rumrtm73 (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a no-brainer; rather just a poorly-written article that needs some polishing and overhaul. Rumrtm73 (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose She has a notable song which is Sofi Needs a Ladder, plus also @Rumrtm73 has more evidence above. Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 02:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Lupták

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

Young Slovak footballer who only played 12 minutes at professional level without evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The only secondary source I found is a passing mention on Dnes24. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

43rd parallel south et al.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/113th meridian east (1st discussion) became a sprawling meta-discussion. So let's start again.

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps#Article for each meridian?, Delectopierre, Strebe and others have discussed deleting all of these en bloc. Mangoe also chimed in in the previous discussion. I refer you to their rationales, which I am sure that will not be shy about repeating here.

This is a wikignoming action to fix something at the input and of AFD that at least one closing administrator was going to have trouble with at the other end of AFD.

all of the articles nominated

2nd parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
3rd parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
4th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
5th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
6th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
9th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
11th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
12th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
14th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
15th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
17th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
18th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
19th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
20th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
21st parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
23rd parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
24th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
25th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
26th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
27th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
28th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
30th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
32nd parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
33rd parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
34th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
36th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
38th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
39th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
40th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
41st parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
43rd parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
44th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
46th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
47th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
48th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
49th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
50th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
51st parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
53rd parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
54th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
55th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
56th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
57th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
58th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
59th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
61st parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
62nd parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
63rd parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
64th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
65th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
66th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
67th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
68th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
69th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
70th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
71st parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
72nd parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
73rd parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
74th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
75th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
76th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
77th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
78th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
79th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2nd parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
3rd parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
4th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
6th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
7th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
9th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
12th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
13th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
14th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
18th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
19th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
21st parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
23rd parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
27th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
29th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
41st parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
43rd parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
44th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
46th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
51st parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
53rd parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
54th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
55th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
56th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
58th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
59th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
61st parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
62nd parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
63rd parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
64th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
65th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
66th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
67th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
69th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
70th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
71st parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
72nd parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
73rd parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
74th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
75th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
76th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
77th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
78th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
79th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
81st parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
82nd parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
83rd parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
84th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
85th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The aforelisted articles all contain nothing but tables of crossing points, and astronomical information about sunrises and sunsets and angles of the sun and constellation visibilities, occasionally for latitudes that are not exactly those of the article.

Let this discussion focus on just the articles where the contained content is purely calculable. This should help to keep things manageable and not introduce masses of side-issues. This is a set of articles that are fairly uniform in what information they provide. (Feel free to note any that I included in error, although I tried to err on the side of ruling things out.)

The following articles are not nominated because they contain claims that the latitude forms part of some territorial border or a reference point for some mapping system, or something else that is not simple astronomical calculation:

the articles not nominated

1st parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
7th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
8th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
10th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
13th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
16th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
22nd parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
29th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
31st parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
35th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
37th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
42nd parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
45th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
52nd parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
60th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
80th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1st parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
5th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
8th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
10th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
11th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
15th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
16th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
17th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
20th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
22nd parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
24th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
25th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
26th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
28th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
30th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
31st parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
32nd parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
33rd parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
34th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
35th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
36th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
37th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
38th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
39th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
40th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
42nd parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
45th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
47th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
48th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
49th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
50th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
52nd parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
57th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
60th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
68th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
80th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The following are already redirects to Antarctica:

81st parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
82nd parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
83rd parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
84th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
85th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
86th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
87th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
88th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
89th parallel south (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The following are already redirects to Arctic Ocean:

86th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
87th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
88th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
89th parallel north (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Also note that from the WikiProject discussion it seems that there are going to be different concerns over parallels and meridians, so there are no meridians in this discussion.

Uncle G (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is a slightly edited duplication of my response to the 113th meridian discussion.

While some of these integral lines of latitude are less important than others, taken as a whole, this collection of articles provides a useful almanac of geographical information.

Per WP:NGEO, "legally recognized, populated places are presumed to be notable". All of these lines have population living on them, and all appear in countless atlases and globes. Many of the lines are used to define international or subnational borders, oceanographic regions, and treaty lines. Some of the lines that define borders are in the "not nominated" list, but not all, e.g. 43rd parallel north.

Integral lines of latitude are mentioned throughout Wikipedia, and the ability to provide context to that text by wikilinking to these articles is invaluable. Deletion would leave a lot of red links in its wake. Some examples:

Iraq: "Iraq lies between latitudes 29° and 38° N, and longitudes 39° and 49° E".
Tuna: "Thunnus are widely but sparsely distributed throughout the oceans of the world, generally in tropical and temperate waters at latitudes ranging between about 45° north and south of the equator."
Norsemen: "Those who plundered Britain lived in what is today Denmark, Scania, the western coast of Sweden and Norway (up to almost the 70th parallel) and along the Swedish Baltic coast up to around the 60th latitude and Lake Mälaren."

Are the articles unsourced? No. Although many do not contain normal references, each contains coordinate links (e.g. 38°37′N 65°0′E / 38.617°N 65.000°E) which point directly to Geohack, itself linking to numerous reliable mapping services. Note that some of these articles used to contain a reference to MSN Maps (now Bing), but I was persuaded that this didn't meet WP:EL criteria and qualified as spam (though I disagree somewhat with that latter point). The Geohack links remain as indexes to reliable sources, although I admit that they don't really look like references. Suggestions for addressing this would be welcome.

Are the articles WP:OR? No. All of the information is verifiable from commonly available reference material, i.e. atlases or on-line mapping sites. The information was translated from one format (cartographic) to another (textual). However, it's certainly not original thought, analysis or synthesis. Consider accessibility: a blind person may not be able to interpret a map, but they could use a screen reader to access the information via these articles.

Do the articles need some attention and tidying up? Yes, but that's not a reason to delete.

The arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/104th meridian east by User:Nyttend and others may provide further context for keeping the articles. See also here, here, and here.

Bazonka (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty absurd to suggest that they are notable because there are populations at these latitudes. A latitude is not a populated place, nor is it legally recognized.

I don't believe these should be outright deleted to leave redlinks. A redirect to Circle of latitude would be more appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 14:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't a script or bot remove links when articles are deleted? CMD (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to Circle of latitude wouldn't provide the reader with any useful information if they wanted to know where the line was on the globe. In a situation such as the Tuna example above where two latitudes are given, both of these may end up redirecting to the same place, which would be utterly useless. Readers would most likely want to know where these latitudes are, not what they are. Bazonka (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Wouldn't provide the reader with any useful information" seems like an extreme unserious overstatement, but if articles such as circle of latitude, latitude, or geographic coordinate system do an inadequate job of showing readers how to find a particular circle of latitude on the globe / do not give readers an idea of how latitude numbers correspond to geographic places, then such articles should be improved. I could imagine circle of latitude containing a full-width map (500 px wide or something) showing a labeled graticule, coastlines, labeled continents, etc. If we want to get fancy we could even use the {{calculator}} feature (cf. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-01-15/Technology report) to make something quasi-interactive, with a little slider box for latitude which would select an image with the corresponding latitude highlighted on the map. I don't think the current articles about parallels do a particularly good job of showing readers where particular parallels are on the globe, and they are very difficult to navigate because Wikipedia is designed as a list of pages connected by text links, not an interactive graphical atlas. –jacobolus (t) 17:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep: I think you should split this nomination like 10 articles at the time to let people discuss each articles listed one article at the time. This will become a trainwreak as we cannot discuss that many articles in one nomination. Also good luck to those gonna close this. Pretty sure XFD Closer will gonna bugged with this one. Renominate the articles again in different separate AFD if nessesary. Thanks Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:5P1: «Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers» (emphasis mine)--cyclopia ^speak! 15:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NGEO states, in part: A feature cannot be notable, under either WP:GNG or any SNG, if the only significant coverage of the feature is in maps. These articles fail that test.

Thanks @Uncle G for cleaning up the process. Delectopierre (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two things there: you ignored the last part of that sentence, which said exceptions apply - and these are not features but lists. These lists are an exception because it's an aggregation of encyclopedic information. SportingFlyer T·C 01:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you ignored the last part of that sentence, which said exceptions apply I did not. I said WP:NGEO states, in part and didn't include the second part because if you'd click the link, you'd see it leads to WP:IGNORE. Do I also need to list the rest of the five pillars?

and these are not features but lists. These lists are an exception because it's an aggregation of encyclopedic information I don't understand. Please clarify? Delectopierre (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all but Equator, Tropic of Cancer, Tropic of Capricorn, Arctic Circle and Antarctic Circle.
- The degree system is arbitrary. There is no natural meaning to it, and other systems exist, such as radians and gradians.
- Whole-numbered degrees are no more meaningful than fractional. It is false to claim, as some in this debate have, that there are “only” 90 parallels or 360 meridians. Not only is that immediately false, it is also false in practice: Depending on the scale of the map and other factors, it is normal for fractional parallels (and meridians) to be shown on maps.
- The location of a given parallel (or meridian) depends on the geodetic datum. It not only depends on the datum, it depends on it locally in the case of most historical datums. Therefore, for example, a given parallel used as a boundary for a country is in fact only the boundary for that country in some specific datum. The much cited 38th parallel dividing North and South Korea is not the boundary in the now commonly used WGS 84 datum and coordinate system — not to mention that the actual border only follows the parallel roughly. Many boundaries are not on the originally intended even-numbered parallel (or meridian) when given in a modern, earth-centric datum.
- Again concerning, for example, the 38th parallel, the notability starts and stops with a short stretch.
- The repeated justification that this information appears in almanacs appears to be false. I cannot find any such thing.
- The repeated justification that this information appears on maps feels extremely strained to me. We don’t make articles for every star catalogued by modern astronomy for the simple reason that very few of the billions of catalogued stars have any notability or meaning individually to more than a few people. Meanwhile, stars are far less arbitrary than whole-numbered parallels (and meridians).
- I disagree with the argument that WP:NUMBERS justifies these articles. One of the first guides in WP:NUMBERS is Have professional mathematicians published papers on this topic, or chapters in a book? With respect to most parallels (or meridians), the answer is “no”: No professional has published papers on most individual parallels (or meridians). WP:NUMBERS expressly excludes whole numbers with no notability other than that they are whole numbers; they must fulfill other requirements.

Strebe (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer - this is gazetteer information and clearly correct, and cursory searches of the internet show different articles of cities by longitude and latitude. This is encyclopedic information along the lines of WP:NUMBER. SportingFlyer T·C 16:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anything which can't meet GNG; see Strebe's comment above for some nice discussion. Aside: I believe there is a severe misunderstanding among many participants in the previous and this discussion about the content and nature of these articles (ping user:Cyclopia, user:SportingFlyer). These pages do not function as an "almanack" or "gazetteer"; such publications are premised on describing information about the most notable places (e.g. large population centers, politically important places, rivers, continents, etc.), and to the extent there is geographical information about those places it comes in the form of maps or lists of places within a particular region. These articles are entirely different: they include only lists of places falling at particular exact integer-degree latitudes, with no concern for the importance of the places involved. So for example Shelter Cove, California (population 803) is included because it has latitude 40°01′50″N which is close to an exact integer. However, New York City (population 8,804,190) is excluded because it has latitude 40°42′46″N, which is not close enough to an exact integer. I defy anyone to find an almanac or gazetteer which includes Shelter Grove but excludes New York City. You won't be able to, because it is an absurd criterion for picking out a (very limited) list of geographical places. –jacobolus (t) 17:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the point you are trying to make. «These pages do not function as an "almanack" or "gazetteer"». It's not the page that works as a gazetteer; it's Wikipedia as a whole. The whole example about Shelter Cove etc. makes no sense whatsoever to me. cyclopia^speak! 17:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur - a gazetteer is a "geographic index" and these pages clearly function as a geographic index. This is a very rare case where GNG is irrelevant. SportingFlyer T·C 18:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These pages do not function as a gazetteer. A gazetteer does not discriminate for or against locations based on whether they lie along a given meridian or parallel. Rather, they serve as an index of places having notability regardless of whole-number coordinates, if they limit their entries, or of all named places (typically in a more local context). There is no such thing as a gazetteer based on locations along a parallel or meridian for the simple reason that would have no utility and the list of inclusions have no significance. Strebe (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing that Wikipedia, as a whole, discriminates for or against locations based on whether they lie along a given meridian? Do we have "lying on a meridian" or "lying on a parallel" as inclusion criteria? Again: a page is not an encyclopedia. Wikipedia does not discriminate for or against locations based on whether they lie along a given meridian. Wikipedia, correctly, however, discussed locations that cross a given meridian in the article about that meridian. That is no more "discrimination" than citing Belgian localities in an article about Belgium. cyclopia ^speak! 20:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discrimination is in singling out integer parallels and meridians for special treatment when there is nothing special about them. The locations presented in the articles under discussion are giving significance they do not possess when nearby locations that happen not to fall on integer parallels or meridians do not receive that attention. That is a gross WP:NPOV violation. Integer parallels and meridians have no inherent significance over non-integer meridians and parallels and so the locations spanning them do not acquire significance by virtue of spanning them. This whole enterprise smells like numerology. Why you bring Wikipedia as a whole into it is inscrutable. I don’t advocate deleting Wikipedia or articles that follow its guidelines. Strebe (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I bring Wikipedia as a whole because you said «A gazetteer does not discriminate for or against locations based on whether they lie along a given meridian or parallel»: but the gazetteer here is the whole of WP, that hardly discriminates based on meridians or parallels. The locations do not acquire significance for being on the meridian or parallel: they are simply features of the Earth location defined by such a meridian or parallel. They're not special in an absolute sense: they're just there, and as such noted there for the very same reason we list cities and rivers belonging to a country or a continent. As for singling integer parallels and meridians, well, they are (usually as a subset) the same almost always featured on world or regional maps. See e.g.this Alaska USGS map. cyclopia ^speak! 20:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, if you believe a single given location is given undue weight in such an article, you can edit it out of the article; that has little to do with the existence of the article itself. cyclopia ^speak! 20:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be all locations in these articles, because they are all given WP:UNDUE weight compared to locations not on integer parallels or meridians. Strebe (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all locations currently listed in these articles are given undue weight, and the only reasonable way such articles could possibly meet Wikipedia guidelines for NPOV would be to include the entire band of latitudes (e.g. 45°30′ to 46°30′) with the list of places to include chosen by some neutral criterion, e.g. listing all cities with at least 500,000 people living in them and all national capitals. Otherwise what we end up with is an entirely artificial and arbitrary choice which is not neutral and is original research not supported by reliable sources. –jacobolus (t) 22:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The locations do not acquire significance for being on the meridian or parallel: they are simply features of the Earth location defined by such a meridian or parallel. That’s right. And the problem is that those meridians and parallels have no geographic significance for grouping. There is no precedent in the literature. They have been chosen because they are integers, which has nothing to do with the geographical context. as such noted there for the very same reason we list cities and rivers belonging to a country or a continent. The river and country and continent are WP:NOTABLE. Integer parallels and meridians are not. …well, they are (usually as a subset) the same almost always featured on world or regional maps. They appear that way purely because they have to appear some way, not because they are significant in and of themselves and not because the locations that happen to lie along them make them significant. I could make a series of hundreds of Wikipedia articles, each of which lists cities that are integer multiples of 100 km distance from the article’s central city. For example, one for all cities that are n × 100 km from Washington D.C, one for all cities that are n × 100 km from London, n × 100 km from Paris, and so forth. Honestly, that strikes me as more valuable… but it’s pretty much useless. Strebe (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have to actually go look at these pages and carefully consider their practical use by real readers before declaring that they support the function of a "gazetteer" or "almanack". My contention is that they self-evidently do not, and anyone claiming otherwise needs to try to make a persuasive case to explain how that works, because on its face it seems like nonsense. Just stating this without elaboration is non meaningfully engaging with the discussion.

Let's look at a concrete example: here's a gazetteer from 1854, which I randomly picked as the first one that popped up in a web search. This gazetteer mainly consists of an alphabetical list of all places within the region of coverage (the USA in 1854) which are considered sufficiently notable to mention. If you look up a random small town by name, you will be given a textual description of where to find that place, relative to presumed-known places such as states or major cities. By comparison, if you look up a major place such as a state or major city, you will see page after page of detailed information about the place. (The gazetteer also includes as appendices at the back a list of colleges, a list of railroads, a list of military outposts, a table of agricultural output by state, etc.)

Wikipedia as a whole already serves this function but that has nothing whatsoever to do with these integer-latitude articles: if you look up a random small town by name, you will usually obtain a stub article containing basic information such as its geographical coordinates, location relative to more significant places, and population, while if you look for a significant place you will obtain much more detailed information. When Wikipedia is described as "combin[ing] many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" this is what is meant; the geographical entries found in a gazetteer are a subset of the entries which you are likely to find in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia contains the same kind of information found in the gazetteer.

But these latitude articles are something completely different, and claiming that they are "gazetteer information" seems clearly factually incorrect. These articles pick out a trivially narrow and extremely arbitrary subset of places, most of which are not particularly significant, and elevate them in a way not found in any other sources. This is a serious problem and a sharp violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. The articles themselves seem to me to clearly violate WP:N.
In theory we could use articles at these titles as a kind of geographical index, if their combination contained a list of all sufficiently significant places on Earth, with e.g. the article about 45° listing every significant place within the band of 45°30′ to 46°30′. That would be more supportable as a kind of list/index article. But then the content would balloon to potentially millions of items in the list, and we'd need a long and serious discussion about which places are notable enough to include, what reasonable criteria might be, who gets to decide, etc. I don't think such articles would be of value significant enough to be worth the very steep maintenance burden that would be required, and as a navigational index this method frankly still sucks compared to looking at a map. If we want something that isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, then the list should be quite limited and probably organized by region.... lo and behold, we already have such lists, such as List of United States cities by population (among numerous others). If we want to include geographical coordinates, per se, in such lists, we should just add an extra column to their tables, instead of making a separate geographic-coordinate-organized index. –jacobolus (t) –jacobolus (t) 18:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very well articulated. Strebe (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NPOV argument seems insurmountable. Strebe (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the WP:OR and WP:NPOV arguments are ridiculous. First, it's not original research to say a city is along a specific line of latitude or longitude. I have absolutely no idea which part of WP:NPOV even applies here - are we stating opinions as facts? Stating facts as opinions? No, we're just presenting data in a specific way. Also, cherry picking one gazetteer at random isn't necessarily helpful - there have been books written listing the latitude and longitudes of specific locations, such as Longitudes and Latitudes in the United States (Dernay, 1945) or Air-line Distances Between Cities in the United States (Whitten, 1961). WP:INDISCRIMINATE fails as well because there will never be more than 180 latitude articles and no more than 360 longitude articles, so it's clearly discriminate. As for WP:N, previous AfDs have made the argument that these articles are more similar to WP:NUMBER. SportingFlyer T·C 19:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the point of these examples.
Air-line Distances Between Cities in the United States is an extensive table listing the point-to-point distance between every pair of major cities. The cities are chosen by significance/population, not by latitude. The only concrete information presented is the distances themselves. I would not consider a table like this document to be worth including in Wikipedia, so it seems like a poor example of something we should care about. But it also is totally irrelevant to the current topic.

Longitudes and latitudes in the United States is an alphabetical table of major cities, organized by state, showing the geographical coordinates of each city as well as the time difference between local time and the relevant standard time zone. As I said above, I think it would be fine to list the geographical coordinates of a list of cities, and I proposed adding a new column to List of United States cities by population as a way to accomplish this, if someone wants to pursue it. Again, this seems substantially irrelevant to the current discussion about these latitude articles.

As for Wikipedia:Notability (numbers): the current test proposed there is that only "interesting mathematical properties" and only numbers with several such properties or "obvious cultural significance" should be given articles. Articles about numbers are routinely deleted for being non-notable, and demonstrating notability requires providing sources which specifically call out the number. It seems to me like a largely unrelated question, but by criteria like those usually applied to numbers these articles should be deleted. –jacobolus (t) 19:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the latitude and longitude of cities and places are notable enough that they were frequently covered in books and specialty publications. These articles are just lists that summarise that information slightly differently. SportingFlyer T·C 19:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the latitude and longitude of cities and places is covered in Wikipedia already, and nobody is proposing removing such information. These latitude articles do not "just summarize that information"; instead they invent an original categorization scheme not attested in reliable sources, pick out an arbitrary tiny collection of mostly trivial places while ignoring the majority of significant places, and provide basically no value to readers as a summary or index. –jacobolus (t) 19:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. The cities are not chosen because they were notable; they were chosen because they exist along an arbitrary line. If it were just a different way to organize, the material to be organized would be the same . The WP:NPOV argument is powerful: places are being given significance far out of proportion when nearby places that happen not to fall on an integer meridian or parallel are ignored by this scheme. Strebe (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With the same argument, one can deduce that a List of cities in Belgium violates WP:NPOV: after all, cities in that list are included only because they're being enclosed by an arbitrary boundary. How is that different from localities lying on a meridian? A meridian is a (very thin, very long) location on Earth. Listing features of this location is the obvious thing to do when describing such a location. cyclopia ^speak! 20:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Belgium is a WP:NOTABLE construct. Can we agree on that? The disagreement is about whether an integer meridian or parallel is a WP:NOTABLE construct. No Wikipedia policy I know of suggests that it is, and the very WP:NUMBERS guideline repeatedly evoked here pointedly disagrees these arbitrary lines could be notable: No expert has published papers on individual integer parallels or meridians (to give just one of several reasons from the guideline).

2. Towns outside Belgium are not being discriminated against because Wikipedia articles do, or could (without contest), exist that do the same for whatever country those towns are in. Meanwhile, there will never be a “complete” set of parallels and meridians because there is no such thing. Therefore enormous numbers of locations are permanently discriminated against. This is WP:NPOV. Strebe (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the question we fundamentally ask at AfD is "is/are this article/s encyclopedic?" At their very core, I believe that answer is a firm yes. SportingFlyer T·C 22:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At their very core, I believe the answer is an obvious “no”. That is the debate; I don’t think simply asserting a conclusion helps. Strebe (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lines aren't arbitrary, though - they've been commonly accepted for use in navigation for centuries. SportingFlyer T·C 22:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No they haven’t. Navigation does not treat integer meridians and parallels specially. Strebe (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not, but that wasn't my specific point - integer parallels and meridians are often discussed as geographic concepts, such as [14] [15] [16] [17] SportingFlyer T·C 22:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not “geographic concepts”. Like an odometer turning over at a round number, yes, people will mark a meridian or parallel at a particular point (not all along it). That does not make it a concept any more than an odometer rolling over is a concept in any meaningful way — and if it is, there has to be some kind of research on it, not just an anecdotal observation that some people like round numbers. Having a long history of scholarly geography, I assure you, there is no literature that talks about integer meridians and parallels as “a concept”. Pedantically, it’s a concept, but it’s a frivolous one. The 45th parallel is possibly one you could scrape together enough WP:RELIABLE information on to turn into an article (such as, it’s not actually the halfway point despite common belief and despite that highway departments insist on marking it as such), but there is no WP:RELIABLE support for arbitrary integer meridians and parallels having any significance. Some of those markers from your list are geodetic markers (that are, in fact, not at the locations they state themselves to be in modern coordinates) and sure, a surveyor is going to choose an integer lat/lon as a geodetic origin because, why not? Less carving than 14°17′33.2994″ and less text to propagate information about this anchor. But I guarantee you that the surveyor will deny there is any significance to it beyond that. Strebe (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they're geographic concepts. Buy a geography book for eight year olds. SportingFlyer T·C 01:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is such a geography book for 8-year-olds which organizes its content this way, please link it explicitly. Otherwise it seems likely that you are inventing fake children's books that don't and won't ever exist, as a bizarre rhetorical flourish. –jacobolus (t) 01:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be supportive of an article called Meridian marker or List of geographical monuments or similar, as long as the content is supported by reliable sources. There might even be some higher-level material somewhere discussing the history of such monuments. –jacobolus (t) 22:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but Equator, Tropic of Cancer, Tropic of Capricorn, Arctic Circle and Antarctic Circle, for essentially the same reasons Strebe gives. Parts of some lines of latitude have meaning in defining borders, and some of those are integer values, but generally are not (e.g. US state boundaries). I do not see how these segments grant notability to the entire circle. And I don't see the gazetteer argument at all. In the first place, no gazetteer I've ever seen lists places this way, and in the second, the "WP is a gazetteer" statement is a misquote of probably the most controversial claim about WP's geographic purpose, as we have consistently rejected the notion that we should exhaustively document place names. I'll say it again: these articles consistently read to me as lists of unrelated factoids about places that happen to lie on or close to integral parallels. In other words, they are collections of trivia of the sort which once plagued social media. Mangoe (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. So how do all of your positions apply to one of the nominated articles? Try 64th parallel south or 3rd parallel north or some others in the list.
If this is about relating places on the planet, why do articles such as 36th parallel south exclude all oceanographic features? (The Foundation Seamounts are too big for Wikipedia writers to miss.) For those asserting almanac/gazetteer status, how are the nominated articles almanacs/gazetteers? For those asserting non-notability, how are they non-notable? For those asserting that this is a convention outwith Wikipedia, where are they in other reference works? For those asserting legal recognition, how is (say) 78th parallel south (and indeed any of the others, since this set specifically excludes any articles that claim border or baseline status in any way) a legally recognized place? For those asserting populated places, how is (say) 85th parallel north a populated place?
I remind those digressing and waffling on about the 45th parallel and suchlike to read the lists in the nomination.
Uncle G (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. There's no reason they exclude oceanographic features, apart from the fact we've probably never thought about adding them in before.

2. The nominated articles are essentially lists of geographic features. One of Wikipedia's functions is to serve as a gazetteer, or an index of geographic information, and these lists serve exactly that purpose. See websites like [18] [19], and older books which list latitude and longitude of cities as reference guides. Now these are more commonly seen in data sets.

3. Your populated place arguments are red herrings. These are not settlements to be analysed under NGEO. The question is whether or not these lists serve an encyclopedic function. I think they are excellent references, because they are navigational lists which helps readers understand which places are equidistant from the equator (every 60.0 nautical miles, you reach another parallel), and which places are on the same meridian. SportingFlyer T·C 04:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fantaazma

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

A questionably notable organisation that's written with more puffery than a large bowl of Sugar Puffs, created by a user who decided to bypass the AfC process when it was declined as a draft. There are a couple of decent sources in there, such as a Rolling Stone piece, but crucially, they appear to all be trivial passing mentions, with no actual substance talking about this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The deletion nomination inaccurately characterizes the article's sources as trivial or passing mentions. In reality, the article cites substantial coverage from independent, reliable, and well-established outlets, including Rolling Stone and Bass Magazine, which provide detailed discussions of Fantaazma’s musical contributions, artistic identity, and innovative performance style, extending significantly beyond mere name-dropping or passing references.

Case in point, additionally, specialized German publications have independently analyzed her music and aesthetics, demonstrating clear recognition and notability within contemporary artistic and cultural discourse. Fantaazma's distinctiveness is explicitly acknowledged by credible sources, including Rolling Stone and Bass Magazine, establishing her notability within contemporary artistic and cultural discourse.

Regarding the claim of "puffery," the tone and content of the article are factual and appropriately neutral, objectively summarizing Fantaazma’s work and critical reception without exaggerated promotional language. If minor stylistic adjustments are necessary, these can be addressed easily through standard editorial improvements rather than deletion.

I acknowledge and take responsibility for any unintentional bypassing the AfC review process due to possible misunderstandings about procedural requirements and a prolonged lack of timely feedback despite multiple requests. However, this possible procedural oversight does not negate the article's clear notability, which is established by the high-quality, independent sources already cited.

Furthermore, this deletion nomination appears to be retaliatory, as it was initiated immediately after I nominated three interconnected demonstrably promotional and conflict-of-interest-ridden articles, Michael Dorf, Knitting Factory, and City Winery. The user who flagged Fantaazma for deletion had a hand in their creation. The three articles have been repeatedly flagged for violations of clearly being vehicles designed exclusively to promote the business interests of a man named Michael Dorf. The three articles are even flagged as proven COI by his relatives and employees. The aforementioned three articles have extensive, documented histories of guideline violations, including content directly copied from the subject's personal and business websites, undisclosed paid edits by confirmed relatives and employees of Dorf, and repeated reversions of corrections made by neutral editors. The timing and context of this nomination strongly suggest that the motivation behind flagging the Fantaazma article is not based on legitimate concerns about notability or tone but rather as a reaction to my nomination of the Michael Dorf-related articles.

In contrast, the Fantaazma article includes substantial, credible sourcing from notable publications such as Rolling Stone, Bass Magazine, and independent German media, clearly meeting Wikipedia's standards for notability. These sources provide in-depth discussions of Fantaazma’s music, artistic identity, and innovative performance style, going significantly beyond mere passing references.

If any procedural or tonal improvements are required, these can easily be resolved through standard editing processes rather than deletion. Given the article’s compliance with Wikipedia’s substantive guidelines and reliance on credible sources, deletion is unwarranted. Constructive feedback for editorial improvements is welcomed. Qinifer (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example, this source says "On his 23rd studio album Album of the Year #1 Funkateer, the Rock and Roll Hall of Famer finds himself in a new position – that of coach and above all, producer. Crafting a sound that sonically runs the Bootsy gamut from bedroom Bootsy, to space-alien adventures to unexpected rock, Collins has drawn together a network of collaborators from Snoop Dogg, Dave Stewart, Wiz Khalifa, October London, Fantaazma and many more who light the fire in him and helped him make the album of the year.". That is a good example of a trivial passing mention of the subject that is not good enough for notability. While this source mentions the subject talking about Bootsy Collins, and isn't actually about them. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the second article you cited explicitly includes a two-paragraph description of Fantaazma’s significant artistic contributions to the song and associated short film, followed by a direct quote of lyrics that she wrote and performed. This quote serves as an illustrative example of the aesthetic analysis provided in the source and is not an interview quotation as you have mischaracterized it. Arts-focused publications, including notable ones like Rolling Stone, commonly employ poetic vernacular in their critical assessments, which remains entirely appropriate for establishing notability. As stated in WP:ADD, substantial coverage of a subject within articles ostensibly about another subject demonstrates significance and notability.

Additionally, while some cited references indeed offer brief mentions, like your first citation, these were made to substantiate specific details within sections like discography or collaborations. However, multiple other sources, including the second example you yourself referenced, provide extensive, substantive discussion dedicated explicitly to Fantaazma's creative output and artistic significance.

Regarding your deletions of significant sections, the correct Wikipedia procedure in cases of missing inline citations would have been to use [citation needed] tags, providing the opportunity for appropriate sources to be added or clarified. The deleted content, including the collaborations section, is accurately supported by existing citations already present within the article and could have been easily clarified by distributing existing references more explicitly as some citations made to support the discography could have been re-used in the collaboration section. Your aggressive blanket deletions are not consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines, especially when relevant sources are demonstrably available and already included.

I recognize there may be language barriers causing some confusion or loss of nuance in understanding the critical analysis provided by the multilingual sources. Some of these analytical citations substantiate the content that you aggressively removed without first seeking clarification or tagging them with [citation needed]. I will dedicate time to clearly integrate extensive citations throughout the affected sections, demonstrating that these are credible, verifiable sources and are not unsubstantiated or manufactured as you implied. As stated in WP:ADD, concerns about citations or source clarity warrant editorial improvement rather than wholesale deletion. Qinifer (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, rather than making an effort to improve the article by tagging unsourced statements with ^{[citation needed]}, the nominator has instead chosen to remove significant portions of the article outright. This contradicts Wikipedia's WP:PRESERVE guideline, which encourages improving verifiable content rather than deleting it, especially when sources exist (which they do). If any section requires additional citations, they can be added rather than removed wholesale. This is particularly true for sections like the bibliography, where information should be uncontested but may require more robust substantiation.

I will be working on restoring the deleted biography and bibliography/discography sections while ensuring that all citations are clearly integrated and substantiate the content. This process will take time, but I am committed to improving the article rather than allowing properly sourced material to be unnecessarily removed. Qinifer (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By way of further explanation, the Rolling Stone article does not merely mention Fantaazma in passing. The article provides significant, independent, and substantive coverage of her artistic contributions within Hip Hop Lollipop as a narrative-driven intermedia work. The article appropriately frames the song and film as a modern theatrical performance, analyzing its musical, visual, and thematic elements rather than treating it as a standalone "track" (so to speak).

Rather than merely listing Fantaazma as a featured artist, the article dedicates multiple paragraphs to analyzing her transformation within the performance’s narrative, highlighting her vocal, lyrical, and visual contributions to the structured artistic world of the piece. It appropriately covers Hip Hop Lollipop as a scripted musical and visual journey as an integrated total work of art, with Bootsy Collins assuming a mentor role and Fantaazma undergoing a character evolution, aligning with established coming-of-age storytelling motifs. Additionally, Rolling Stone explicitly quotes her self-penned lyrical lines from the play as part of its thematic discussion of the work, which constitutes substantive critical analysis rather than a mere passing mention. This level of engagement meets WP:N's requirement for significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) and is consistent with how music journalism analyzes intermedia performances that integrate music, performance, and visual storytelling (WP:ARTICLESIG).

Furthermore, Fantaazma is discussed as an equal alongside established, highly notable musicians such as Victor Wooten and Branford Marsalis, reinforcing that her contributions are central to the artistic vision of the track. The depth of discussion and explicit focus on her performance, character transformation, and lyrical contributions meet WP:MUSICBIO's standard for significant independent coverage of an artist's work.

While the article also includes promotional material about Bootsy Collins, the portion covering Fantaazma clearly meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, as it provides direct analysis of her artistic contributions rather than simply name-dropping her. Dismissing this as a "passing mention" is an incorrect characterization of the article’s content and misrepresents how critical arts journalism functions. While framed around Bootsy Collins, who spearheaded the project, the journalist decided that the article should instead ultimately serve as a feature on Hip Hop Lollipop with a significant focus on Fantaazma’s artistic role and contributions above and beyond anyone else involved in the project.

TL;DR: Hip Hop Lollipop is a narrative-driven intermedia work, and Rolling Stone analyzed it as such. The article’s discussion of Fantaazma is substantial, structured, and thematic, not trivial. The article considers her role as a primary contribution worthy of coverage, dedicating three paragraphs to analyzing her performance. This coverage justifies significant notability and critical analysis in a major, credible publication according to WP:N, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ARTICLESIG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:RS. Qinifer (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conway triangle notation

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

MathWorld is notorious for neologisms, and this is one. MathWorld in turn sources this notation only to an unpublished book manuscript that uses this notation only in the formulation of a single formula. My prod saying as much was reverted by User:Mast303 with no improvement and a WP:VAGUEWAVE at notability, so here we are. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's surprising - you can find LOTS of people mentioning this convention, but very little discussion of the convention itself. For the amount of hits you get back, I'm definitely surprised to discover that it doesn't really seem to have enough support to justify inclusion at the moment. PianoDan (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't have an opinion on whether to keep or delete the article, but I will mention that I saw this notation a long time ago. I don't think it's a term coined by MathWorld, but admittedly I have no sources to back this up. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 00:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment. I created this article in 2008 because I noted that a number of published papers in projective geometry that I was reading at the time used the Conway notation as a short hand and there did not exist any scholarly article detailing the notation or how best to use it. The only reference at the time was the entry in MathWorld and it referred to Yiu, P. "Notation." §3.4.1 in Introduction to the Geometry of the Triangle. pp. 33-34, Version 2.0402, April 2002.

Deleting the article because an editor believes that "Conway triangle notation" is a neologism created by MathWord seems excessive and probably incorrect. I do not know who coined the phrase "Conway triangle notation" but details of the notation were published by Paul Yiu in his very popular and well cited Book/Journal, "Introduction to the Geometry of the Triangle" first published in 2001.

Today, many papers in geometry use the notation here is a recent example:-

Trigonometric Polynomial Points in the Plane of a Triangle by Clark Kimberling 1, and Peter J. C. Moses - see section 7 at https://www.mdpi.com/3042-402X/1/1/5.

I note that there are 2 other language versions of the article. The Dutch version also has no references. Will this be deleted by the same editor or will it remain? I believe there needs to be consistency.

Finally, I will insert 2 references into the article - The Paul Yiu reference mentioned above and a reference to the Encyclopedia of Triangle Centers and ETC Part 1 "Introduced on November 1, 2011: Combos" Note 6. - Frank M. Jackson (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 12:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment. Though the term "Conway triangle notation" may or may not have been created at MathWorld, the use of the notation goes back to the nineteenth century. The following reference has been supplied by Francisco Javier.

"Here it is a previous use of the nowadays known as Conway notation by a Spanish mathematician in the XIX century:

Juan Jacobo Durán Loriga,

"Nota sobre el triángulo", en El Progreso Matemático, tomo IV (1894), pages 313-316."

https://hemerotecadigital.bne.es/hd/es/viewer?id=60bef4e2-9410-4e51-8dca-5044fc99ba4a

Francisco Javier. Frank M. Jackson (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dorf (entrepreneur)

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

This is a procedural nomination completed incorrectly by Qinifer (talk · contribs), which reads:

This article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines and lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to demonstrate lasting encyclopedic value. Furthermore, this article has a long history of promotional editing, undisclosed paid editing, and conflict-of-interest violations, as documented on its Talk page. Multiple editors have repeatedly flagged its self-promotional tone, and past revisions contained material copied from the subject’s website. Given the pattern of promotional activity across multiple related articles (including Knitting Factory and City Winery), this article appears to exist to promote an individual and his business interests rather than provide an objective, verifiable encyclopedic entry. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Udhcpc

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

All sources listed are either by the program's official website, or sources that aren't independent. Could not find reliable and significant sources describing this program LR.127 (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. LR.127 (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is because the actual name of the software package under which one will find it is udhcp, as documented on ISBN 9780596005023 p. 66 and ISBN 9780596555054 p. 304. Fairly obviously from those sources, it is a sub-topic of BusyBox and not substantial enough for its own standalone article. Uncle G (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very helpful when I needed info. I don't see an advantage of having hundreds of descriptions in a busybox article. On a counter point: When googling the subject, google generative ai generates a very nice overview now, which makes this less important. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Daniel.Cardenas (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. – The Grid (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook WP:ITSUSEFUL argument Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. – The Grid (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. – The Grid (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SiGMA Group

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

This is a promotional article about a non-notable affiliate marketing company. Most of the references are press releases from the company. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of animated features films Pre-1940s-1960s

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

Completely useless article which was then turned in an implausible redirect and has now been turned into an implausibly named disambiguation. No idea why it hasn't been long deleted instead, the title is not something one would look for. Fram (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Disambiguations, and Lists. Fram (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that it serves no useful purpose. I too wonder at Wikisurfer1234's creation of the original article less than three weeks ago, given the existence of articles List of animated feature films before 1940 and following. --Bejnar (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see any value to either the previous redirect or the dab. Perhaps redirecting to Lists of animated films would also be acceptable. older ≠ wiser 11:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since it incorrectly uses "features" instead of "feature", incorrectly capitalizes "Pre", and uses a very weird search construction ("I want to see animated feature films from before the 1940s until the 1960s"? Why would you not simply say "pre-1970" if this extremely specific search is what you want? What does the "pre-1940s actually add?) I see no good argument to redirect it anywhere at all. Note that they have been trying similar stuff since 2023, then at List of animated feature films from pre-1940s-1960s and List of animated feature films from pre-1940s-present. Fram (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and would prefer to delete. But there are bazillions of stupidly, silly redirects that have been kept for inscrutable rationales. older ≠ wiser 12:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - weird title, entirely pointless. SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: useless. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The original article was just copy and pasting things from the other articles that already list this. No reason to shove them together. Also someone already erased that article, replacing it with the current form just listing where the information is already had. Still useless. Dream Focus 01:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Disambiguation for an expression that no one would ever use?? What was the creator thinking? —Tamfang (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Esad Samardžić

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

He does not appear to be notable per Wikipedia standards Hardyplants (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Police, Football, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Switzerland, and Yugoslavia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

City Winery

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

This is a procedural nomination. Apparently I created this page as a redirect in 2015, then decided to "let's try an article", which suggests I was helping or doing cleanup for somebody (it's not the sort of article I would have spontaneously written). Anyway, it was recently PRODded, but I think a discussion on it is better. So discuss. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Organizations. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do Draft:City Winery and Special:Permalink/666766371#Response to you jog the memory? Uncle G (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, I was doing NPP / AfC patrol, that figures. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good nomination, I agree wrt the rationale that PROD was unnecessary. There appears to be sufficient coverage in reliable secondary, independent third-party sources, over a period of time, to indicate both GNG and SIGCOV have been met. Cheers, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found these sources: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. None of them is particularly great in terms of establishing more than a passing mention, but I think there's just enough independent sourcing from various places to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Not a slam-dunk, but, I think, enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: There seems to be enough sourcing to justify a small article. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines as outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NORG and lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to demonstrate lasting encyclopedic value. Furthermore, the articles in question (see below) have a long history of promotional editing, undisclosed paid editing, and conflict-of-interest violations, as documented on their Talk pages. The COI concerns are not hypothetical, they have been thoroughly documented for years, including extensive reports on Talk:Michael Dorf (entrepreneur) (which the City Winery Talk page directs all COI discussion to in order to keep it in one place), where multiple editors flagged that Dorf’s verified relatives and employees were creating and/or manipulating this and other Michael Dorf related pages as part of a coordinated PR effort to promote Michael Dorf's business ventures. Past revisions contained material directly copied from the subject’s website, in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING.

To address the nominator’s comments, while the page may have originally been created in good faith, it was subsequently hijacked by third party actors' promotional interests, as extensively documented. Given the pattern of promotional activity across multiple related articles (Michael Dorf, Knitting Factory, and City Winery), this article has been abused by subsequent actors to promote an individual and his business interests rather than as a neutral encyclopedia entry. Retaining this page serves no encyclopedic purpose beyond acting as a business directory entry, which is explicitly against Wikipedia’s purpose. Qinifer (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By way of further explanation, further evidence supporting deletion can be found on the Talk:Michael Dorf (entrepreneur) - Wikipedia page, where long-term WP:COI violations are documented. The documentation demonstrates sustained efforts to use the Michael Dorf, Knitting Factory, and City Winery pages as promotional tools for Michael Dorf’s businesses. Edits were made by accounts closely linked to Dorf, including individuals sharing his last name and identified as his immediate family members, as well as repeated undisclosed paid editing. While some edits were reverted, others were not, and the underlying promotional nature of these articles were never meaningfully corrected. Given Wikipedia’s policies against promotional content (WP:NOTADIRECTORY), its requirement for significant independent coverage (WP:GNG), and the other reasons I stated in my previous response, this page should be deleted. Qinifer (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abrar Fahad (Bangladesh)

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

All sources are because of his death, making it WP:BIO1E. Since there is already an article about his death, Murder of Abrar Fahad, a separate biographical article is not needed and fails to meet notability guidelines. GrabUp - Talk 07:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing AI Generated argument. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I strongly oppose the deletion of this article and believe that the proposal does not adequately consider his continued national significance beyond the tragic circumstances of his death.

National Recognition and Awards: In 2025, Abrar Fahad was posthumously awarded the Independence Award, the highest civilian honor in Bangladesh, conferred by the Government of Bangladesh. This distinction is only given to individuals who have made substantial contributions to the nation, further establishing Abrar Fahad as a notable public figure beyond the incident of his murder. His recognition at this level signifies his lasting importance in Bangladesh’s history.
Legacy in Public Infrastructure: A national-level stadium has been named in his honor, Abrar Fahad Stadium, which further cements his influence and national recognition. Public infrastructure being named after an individual is a strong indicator of their historical and social importance.
Beyond a Single Event (WP:BIO1E Exception): While WP:BIO1E states that individuals primarily known for a single event do not typically merit a standalone article, there are exceptions when the individual has lasting historical significance. Given Abrar Fahad’s posthumous state recognition, his influence on student activism, and the dedication of a national stadium in his name, his legacy extends well beyond the murder case.
Distinction Between Biography and Incident: The "Murder of Abrar Fahad" article primarily focuses on the crime and legal proceedings, whereas a separate biographical article provides context on his life, achievements, and impact on society. Merging both into a single article would reduce his identity solely to the tragedy rather than acknowledging his broader contributions and influence.
Precedents in Wikipedia Notability: Other individuals who gained prominence posthumously due to tragic events but later received national honors or had institutions named after them have retained separate Wikipedia articles. The precedent for keeping such pages exists.

For these reasons, I strongly discourage the deletion of the article. Instead, efforts should be made to expand it with additional biographical information that reflects Abrar Fahad’s lasting impact on Bangladesh’s society and history. DelwarHossain (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use AI to respond in discussions. Wikipedia discussions take place between humans. Geschichte (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Engineering, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael O'Dwyer (academic)

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

Not notable - I did a little bit of searching and could find next to nothing about him, much less anything worth an article. EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 07:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, France, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm leaning keep on the basis of WP:NAUTHOR — I found at least four reviews of one of his books [25] [26] [27] [28], plus three more reviews that don't seem to be available online. That said, I don't think he quite meets WP:NPROF and I don't think the award he won (which is the lowest grade of the Ordre des Palmes académiques) counts for much. So I tend towards a weak WP:NAUTHOR pass based on the reviews I found, but will try to come back to this when I have time to do a fuller search to see if there's anything stronger. MCE89 (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Azhar Maha Vidyalayam

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

This article has only a single source and that is linked to the subject. I have edited this page and expanded it 2 months before but I was new to wikipedia back then and did not know about the policies. Warriorglance(talk to me) 07:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Warriorglance(talk to me) 07:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Sri Lanka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails the requirements of WP:NSCHOOL, lacks coverage in any independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JuffEd

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. Can't find any reliable, significant coverage beyond this Softpedia review. Softpedia reviews practically everything, and this review mostly just lists features rather than being in-depth. I didn't PROD it because some editors asserted notability on the talk page in 2008. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing anything. (I've checked Newspapers.com, Gale Research, and Archive.org). Timur9008 (talk) 08:07, March 12, 2025 (UTC)

Shai Davidai

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

WP:BIO1E. This person has only received non-trivial coverage by reliable sources for their role as an activist and counter-protester during the 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupations. Before that he was only briefly mentioned by a couple of RS's, and his citation numbers are also pretty mid for a sociologist. This article could possibly be merged to either that page, or List of pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in the United States in 2024#Columbia University, or Columbia University#21st century. Badbluebus (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:PODIUM and WP:NPOV. There are two articles about Mahmoud Khalil so far. These issues have two sides. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per reason given in header. I think a merger will work better indeed. DarkSpartan (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Politics, Israel, United States of America, and New York. Badbluebus (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to be more known as someone who gets agitated, rather than any sort of academic notability. Having strong views one way or another is fine, but I'm not sure that alone is notable. Could be a brief mention in the university's article, but I don't see notability otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As others have stated, he is neither notable nor relevant outside of his response to protests that took place on a campus where he happens to be employed. As others have stated, if his opinion is something the community wants to make note of, it's better suited to merging with the relevant articles about the protests and the aftermath of said protests. EllieDellie (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Davidai's gotten WP:SUSTAINED coverage over the past year related to his involvement opposing the Columbia protests. His activism is not a one-off event, but one that has been covered over a long period of time. Just yesterday, The Verge published a paragraph about him, including saying he is "known for harassing pro-Palestine students on X". SWinxy (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Mentioned in a few articles, and receiving increased attention following the detention of Mahmoud Khalil, Davidai is certainly a person who has received widespread coverage and enjoys some notoriety. However, it is unclear to me that the page itself provides much to the encyclopedic tone of Wikipedia, given that it seems to be a list of opinions that occasionally even clash with one another. As an academic, little is notable about Davidai, though I think that segment of his career could earn more attention. Although Columbia University is in the news a lot recently, it's unclear to me that there is a purpose beyond this professor's statements being mentioned across other articles. PickleG13 (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just a note that you need to be extended-confirmed to participate in this AfD. Any comments from anyone who is not extended confirmed will be reverted, or struck if someone has replied to it. Nil Einne (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not WP:BIO1E. Davidai's role in the "one event" more than meets WP:GNG, per the policy. According to the article the nominator cites, the "one event" lasted from April 17 to June 2, 2024. Coverage in international RS extend far beyond that. [29][30] Besides, WP:NPROF does not apply here, as the subject more than meets WP:GNG, including WP:INDEPTH profiles in New York Magazine, Jerusalem Post, and Time, an interview with a national wire

Zdravko Mićević

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

The subject won the Australian light heavyweight boxing title, but this doesn't seem to be enough for notability per WP:NBOXING. If so, this would be a WP:BLP1E that should be redirected to David Hookes. Astaire (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Serbia, and Australia. Astaire (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Les Borsai

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. The Business Insider is the only reference that comes close to being in-depth about the subject and even that is just about an investment he made. The rest are interviews, brief mentions, cyproblogs, etc. Already draftified once and declined through AfC. CNMall41 (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, Cryptocurrency, Management, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scenecontra (talk • contribs) 01:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An interview on CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/12/30/wave-financial-co-founder-explains-how-to-identify-valuable-nfts-early.html
Fox News interview: https://www.fox5dc.com/video/1604595
Schwab Network: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UixwttzT47c
One more: And this is not an interview but speaker-page on a Milken Institute event page: https://milkeninstitute.org/events/global-conference-2022/speakers/les-borsai It's an independant think tank from California, and this makes him notable. Scenecontra (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These interviews are enough to prove that he's an expert in his area, right? Edited: Requesting to keep this article Scenecontra (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)(Posted this on this discussion's 'Talk' and realised it should be here instead) Scenecontra (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Interviews cannot be used to establish notability. Neither can YouTube videos or press releases. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Expertise is why mainstream media outlets interview someone, right? ~~~ Scenecontra (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please see WP:RS. Being interviewed does not make them an expert. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, if the above comment you left is a !vote, please format it properly. I do not want to change it as I am unsure what your vote is. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting to keep and have added the word 'keep' but not sure if the formatting is right even now. Scenecontra (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then please format it correctly. WP:CIR.

And since you are not responding on your talk page and your attention is here, please review the messages there and provide a response. There are numerous edits who share the same concern. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juvéderm

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

Procedural nomination; I'm neutral on the outcome. Redirected to Injectable filler years ago, put up for WP:RFD here. Referred to AfD instead on account of the page history. asilvering (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Fashion, and Medicine. asilvering (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of peer-reviewed studies about the compound, [31], [32], [33]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fingersmith (slang)

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

DIctionary definition. The word itself is not notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are separate articles for midwife and pickpocketing. It violates the policy Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary to have an article about two unrelated subjects that share the same uncommon term. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Milorad Nikolić (footballer, born 1984)

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

No sign of notability found either from the one (insufficient) existing sourcing, or from a search. Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'm unsure if he scored whilst playing for Sevojno, but if he did, we could redirect to List of goalscoring goalkeepers. – RossEvans19 (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per RossEvans19. Svartner (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Parade/Living with Ghosts

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

In this discussion, a consensus was found that, outside of very special circumstances, individual articles on album reissues probably don't make that much sense, even taking into account notability. However, as I mentioned, there are some special circumstances that were highlighted in the discussion; an example of this was OK Computer OKNOTOK 1997 2017, where the material about the reissue is so abundant and in-depth that trying to properly summarize it on the original OK Computer article would've been next to impossible.

Unfortunately, The Black Parade/Living With Ghosts, the 10th anniversary reissue of The Black Parade, is not one of those album reissues to where I feel that a split is justified. All that happened with this reissue can be easily summarized by it's paragraph that is already present in Release and promotion section of the Black Parade article. Maybe a sentence or two could be added to summarize what kinds of demos and songs were completely cut yet are present here on "Living with Ghosts" (e.g. give a mention to songs like "Emily" and whatnot) but beyond that there's not much that gives this article much of a strong reason to exist, per WP:MERGEREASON. Furthermore, the anniversary reissues for several albums like The Black Parade, such as American Idiot, summarize its reissue in the main article rather than through a spinout, even if it has 4x the listening material to the original work.

But let's say that MERGEREASON and the linked discussion weren't enough, how does the reissue hold up to WP:NALBUM? There are a few things generally looked for by this policy: whether the album charted or received any certifications, if it is covered by several reliable, secondary sources in non-trivial/announcement fashion (i.e. meeting the general notability guidelines), or if it won any awards. However, none of these on their own would automatically make an album or musical work in general notable. The reissue charted in only four regions, and for a very short period of time, with no certifications. Only two reviews of the album were published: this fairly in depth one by AllMusic, and then this one by Rock Sound. Unfortunately, Rock Sound's review barely constitutes as a "review", and is just a few sentences long. No critical commentary is present here. And obviously, as an album reissue for a band that quite literally did not exist at the time it was published, it did not receive any awards. There is this article by the Alternative Press that could be fairly useful, but it's not necessarily a review and I would more or less rather use it as a source for production info behind The Black Parade, because obviously, the songs that were strapped during its production are relevant to that article.

With all of that being said, I firmly believe that this article does not stand its ground on its own and should probably be redirected to The Black Parade. And since this article's material has theoretically already been merged into the main album article, that is why I have chosen AFD as the venue for this discussion and not set up a merge proposal on the album talk pages. λ NegativeMP1 03:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 03:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I contributed to the Music Project discussion that was referenced at the beginning of this nomination, and I don't think a consensus was reached on how to handle the nascent craze for reissues of old albums that are poofed up to look like totally new items (or not). Instead we determined the need for some sort of new WP policy on the matter and I'm not sure if much happened after that. That is relevant here because this MCR reissue could be easily merged back to the original album under older definitions of "reissue", though it did make the charts under its own precise title in 2016, so maybe it doesn't fit that old definition. The ensuing discussion here is likely to include a lot of uncertainty. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The way that I thought the discussion ended was in a decent enough consensus that album reissues may not exactly need their own articles, new or old, even if notable. Either way, I believe I've made my case that the material here should likely just be merged into a paragraph or two in the main Black Parade article. Especially since it likely does not meet WP:GNG on its own due to the lack of critic reviews. If the discussion goes against that though, then I suppose it is what it is. λ NegativeMP1 18:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Nagarkar

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

I do not think he is notable on the grounds of WP:GNG or of WP:ANYBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Grobes Geraet (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. No sources on the page on the biography and career of the subject and whether any of subject's roles were lead roles in any notable films to be considered a notable actor. A search online does not show any results on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Fails WP:NACTOR. Madeleine (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This artist has worked in several films, including "Harya Narya Zindabad," "Bayanon Navre Sambhala," "Lakshmi," "Ek Daav Bhutacha," and "Ramnagri." In addition to their acting career, they have also authored a book. Currently, information about this artist is available from two sources: the Sakal [34] and Mahanagar (newspaper) [35], as well as one source from Google Books.[36]AShiv1212 (talk) 6:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

No significant coverage if any of the films he worked in were notable and if any of the roles he played were lead and significant. Authored a book is fine but no coverage on the book and if it was a subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work. RangersRus (talk) 03:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you all. I am not in favor of keeping this page. During the 1970s and 1980s, Marathi films did not receive coverage in English newspapers. These are local Marathi film artists. AShiv1212 (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note The ID of the person bringing this page to AfD was created 24 hours ago and has not yet gained experience on Wikipedia. This person appears to be an old, experienced user on Wikipedia. Someone should take this person to SPI.

AShiv1212 (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its a muppet. In enwiki you can meet as Alon9393, but in eswiki was Mmoreno25. Acting like a troll he wrote on my page in this link Pichu VI (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:NACTOR. He starred or had significant roles in two films which have English Wikipedia articles, Ek Daav Bhutacha and Sarvasakshi. He also starred in a 1982 film Ramnagari, listed on List of Hindi films of 1982, which was based on his autobiography. The Marathi Wikipedia article on him names other films and folk plays, which there may be coverage of in Hindi language or Marathi language sources. Per WP:NONENG, if such sources exist, they can be cited here - not having coverage in English does not mean that a person, film, etc is not notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant coverage on the career of the subject nor any coverage in any reliable sources that can prove if any of the roles the subject played were notable. Just having a role in a film does not mean that the subject meets WP:NACTOR. You also use words like "may" and "if", sounding doubtful. RangersRus (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: page on a old actor, apparently active only in India and Marathi language so doesn't qualify per the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people) for the English WP. 190.33.37.207 (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement for anyone to be active in the English language, nor, per WP:GNG to have sources in English, to establish notability. If this actor had significant roles in notable Marathi language films, and there is reliable evidence of that, he meets WP:NACTOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are in fact sources in English about him, and I have started adding them to the article. I will add more - the sources make it clear that he was notable: "Ram Nagarkar is a phenomenon in Marathi literature . He has a large following on the stage" (Imprint, 1982); "Ram Nagarkar has managed it all with such poise and ease . Ram Nagarkar , Nilu Phule , and Dada Kondke are old friends ... The public adores this trio" in Quarterly Journal, 1976; "K ANTILAL RATHOD'S latest ' Ram Nagari ' , based on Ram Nagarkar's award-winning Marathi autobiographical novel of the same name", Film World, 1978; etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Anzel

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

This is a promotional article about a nonnotable TV presenter and actress written by an editor blocked for UPE. It's already been PROD'd or I would have tagged it for proposed deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Theatre, England, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: Per Nom. Gratefulking (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked for socking. Toadspike [Talk] 19:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the non-primary sources have significant coverage. The only one close to counting towards the GNG is the Daily Record. A search for sources mainly turned up unreliable tabloids and summaries of TV episodes, with routine internet drama [37] being the best source I saw. Toadspike [Talk] 19:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Lots of coverage in UK media when she was on the Apprentice [38], [39], [40]. Not great coverage but it's enough in RS to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PinkNews [41] and a biography here [42] Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think those are enough to meet the GNG. The first source (link 2) is nothing but TV show plot summary and interview (not independent). The second is a summary of her tweets. The third is a Yahoo News piece summarizing an interview she gave in the Daily Star – which, in addition to not being independent, is a deprecated source. The PinkNews piece contains a smidgen of actual coverage in between more plot and tweet summaries; its biography section at the end seems to be entirely sourced from her website. The Jewish News source also seems to be based entirely on a interview with her; the only encyclopedic information is the second-to-last paragraph, which lists three projects she's worked on. Toadspike [Talk] 11:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~The Bachelor (American TV series) season 1~~ – Keeping this page would mean including all of her resume. Hardly convinced that certain sources verify her general notability, especially tabloid-style ones. You can say that neither WP:BLP1E nor WP:BIO1E applies just because she also was eliminated from The Apprentice (UK) and produced a Happy Days musical, but I've yet to see a good chunk of reliable sources proving me wrong about her. @Toadspike: You don't mind this page becoming a redirect, do you? George Ho (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC); edited, 13:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect might be okay, but she's been in multiple notable shows, so choosing one target is hard. Based on the recent tabloid coverage perhaps The Apprentice (British TV series) series 16 is a better redirect target. Toadspike [Talk] 11:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with your suggested target ~~too~~.... or deletion. Initially, I mistook her as a Bachelor finalist. Re-reading the season article stood me corrected. George Ho (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC); edited, 13:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I like your suggested target a lot more than mine, but I'm also still okay with deletion as well. George Ho (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GNG aside, the coverage is probably not enough to produce a decent article, under WP:SIGCOV. I considered redirecting, but like @Toadspike pointed out, it's hard to choose one to redirect to. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 11:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added articles with significant coverage, and revised wording to be impartial - page can be further improved but it passes WP:GNG. AwkoTaco19 (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Where does this stand after AwkoTaco19's additions? Any closer?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm analyzing the sources used by AwkoTaco19:
- Primary sources, which don't count per GNG: Her profile on The Apprentice UK webpage via BBC, We Are the City interview, blog interview,
- Mentioned in passing: Hollywood Reporter play review,
- Uncertain; leaning toward skeptical: Mount Vernon Argus (paywalled), a Scottish tabloid, The Guardian, some US federal news service, The Scotsman, another tabloid, possibly another tabloid (republished by Yahoo)
- Promising: Radio Times, Digital Spy
- Removed by me: ~~Daily Express~~ (ProQuest 2956941422)

The Mount Vernon Argus piece describes her then-upcoming schedule. Might be indication of notability, but the source's initial goal was promoting her theatrical appearance. The Guardian article quotes her as a producer, but that's about it. Was able to find out that Daily Express was used, so I removed it.

My analysis isn't based on verifying facts but rather her notability. In conclusion, so far, the "improvements" still haven't persuaded me to change my stance about her. Pinging Acer-the-Protogen, Toadspike, and Oaktree b... George Ho (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Even though there's the two promising sources, it's not quite enough to establish notability. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 10:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Luzon

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

This article has been unsourced since 2009 and violates WP:NOTDICT. Looking for sources on this (in English, to be clear, although it is an English term) only turns up news stories that happen to use the term Urban Luzon, often in relation to television, and studies that just say "urban Luzon", presumably meaning the statement literally. Despite the nice map, even if this article were to be changed to actually comment on the area rather than define the term, that would be better put in the Mega Manila article or one of the many similar terms linked in the See Also part of the page. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Geography, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Urban Luzon" isn't exactly a place, just like electoral districts aren't places; it's more like a television market in the United States. Therefore, the article should be indeed about it as a television market, and not say, what landforms and tourist spots are in there. With that being said, singular television markets do not have articles, so I don't know how to proceed. Maybe a redirect to AGB Nielsen Philippines? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine to me. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Urban Luzon → AGB Nielsen Philippines. "Urban Luzon" is just an alternative term used by AGB Nielsen Philippines to refer to the Greater Manila Area, which also refers to the same area or provinces. Additionally, this article violated the WP:NOTDICTIONARY as it only pertains to the definition of this term without demonstrating its notability. AstrooKai (Talk) 16:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jesús Castellano

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it fails WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT, and is WP:TOOSOON.

- The cited sources are primary sources and two sources that are not considered reliable.

There is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that would establish notability under Wikipedia's guidelines.

Brickto (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Venezuela, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – There are only match reports as sources. Svartner (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of highway rest areas in North Korea

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:LISTN criteria. PROD in 2022 was contested so taking this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Lists, and North Korea. Let'srun (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Kind of surprised we had this subject as a list. And, yet, we have Category:Rest areas. I think maybe there needs to be more feedback on the subject lists. — Maile (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sourcing—such as it is—is for specific rest areas. Category:Rest areas is populated with individual locations; there is only one list: List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is very difficult to imagine any independent sources for a list of most things in North Korea. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NLIST, there is no indication that "rest areas in North Korea" has received coverage as a group or set. All the sources in the article discuss individual rest areas, not the topic as a whole. The blog and travel agency sources are not reliable per WP:SPS, and the links to YouTube and Flickr to prove the existence of specific checkpoints are also WP:OR. Astaire (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the two above me. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Africa

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

Likely to fail WP:MUSICBIO KH-1 (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Tanzania. Shellwood (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead(IV) hydroxide

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

not meet notability ,no source 日期20220626 (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have a bunch of sources right here:
- https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Lead_IV_-hydroxide
- https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/DTXSID001045875
Even more sources can be obtained if someone is willing to research on it. Warriorglance(talk to me) 00:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the fact that 2 is only technically a bunch, both of those point to this very Wikipedia article and aren't sources at all. Uncle G (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Note that the EPA website says lead(IV) hydroxide is "notional" Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked under the old and the modern names. This is pretty much only a name and a formula in any chemistry book that I could find. Except for the 1980 one (Siebring&Schaff's General Chemistry) that said "lead (IV) hydroxide does not exist.". Uncle G (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PubChem is a database with pages on every chemical formula that exists. Wikipedia is not and we require substantive sources that describe it with some level of descriptive detail. Reywas92^Talk 03:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Standard reduction potentials indicate lead(IV) hydroxide is thermodynamically unstable. This compound would spontaneously convert to lead(II) oxide and water except maybe at ultra-low temperature. I have not found any reliable references that this compound exists. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]