Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

17 January 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 16	January 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Paolo Rossi (footballer, born 1982)

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

This AfD might be the same issue as Juan Alberto Ramírez that was nominated back in November. Even by searching for his name in combination of clubs he played for, I did not find any significant coverage of Paolo Rossi (footballer, born 1982) to meet WP:GNG. He only played one match for Torino in 2001/02 season, one of the professional football clubs in Italy, before moving to amateur leagues then disappeared for over two decades. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Italy. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – The fact that he is a homonym hinders the search, but it is still possible to confirm the athlete's career at the first levels of Italian football. [1], [2], [3]. Svartner (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Sources above from Svartner are 2 x database and 1 x profile from the league he played in. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ilcalcio provides detailed information, but I agree that more informative sources are missing. Svartner (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Those are database sources which do not count towards significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly didn't read the source, or are you confused with Tutto Calciatore. There is a good coverage of the athlete's career and not just statistical data. The problem is that as I explained, the player is a homonym, so additional sources to ensure WP:SIGCOV are harmed/difficult to search. It's a more complex case than usual. Svartner (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner, Il Calcio is AI-generated. JoelleJay (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete—Although I agree that the sources listed above are "not nothing," they are not WP:SIGCOV in my view. Anwegmann (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think we have the bare minimum of sourcing. I did find some passing mentions in an Italian source search which are definitely him from his Serie B days. SportingFlyer T·C 03:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the exact references? Passing mentions obviously don't count towards significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Il Calcio is clearly an AI-generated summary of his stats (as are all profiles on that site; GPTzero gave all the ones I tested 100% probability of being AI-generated). LegaPro is a blog network, and anyway it's a routine transfer announcement of mostly quotes. Tutto Calciatori is a database. JoelleJay (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups

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

Fails WP:NFILM. After multiple draftifications of the name variations this has been created under, an attempt at a redirect, now here we are. Nothing notable about the production and film still has no release date. Was scheduled for April and now nothing is confirmed. Would suggest a redirect or draftify but again, those WP:ATD have been explored. CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Previous deletion discussion here under one of the alternative names. Also see Draft:Toxic (2025 Film) (declined in November), Toxic (Indian film), Draft:Toxic (film) and Draft:Toxic (2025 Indian film). Other drafts have been merged or deleted under other names and I cannot find the history of those at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the main difference from the past AfD is that the film has commenced and completed filming. The big question though is if the coverage is in-depth enough to pass NFF. Unfortunately a lot of pre-release coverage (unless it's some majorly huge blockbuster) tends to be based on a couple of press releases. India related films seem to be particularly prone to this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I will say in this version's defense, this is better sourced than the one declined at AfC and the one that was previously deleted at AfD. It's all going to depend on whether the sourcing gives a good depth of coverage. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100% better referenced. The issue, which you talked about, is the quality of the press. A lot of this is churnalism, pre-release promotion, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I don't see significant coverage about the production and since it has not yet been released (and as of now we don't know if it will - the best clue is "possibly" December 2025) so there isn't even a review for it. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously an upcoming film from any industry won't have reviews and production details will be limited to avoid spoilers. Release date changes are common, even for Hollywood films such as Mickey 17, which had it's release date changed thrice (no "significant" production details are available for that film as well, and yet, that article has existed since principal photography began 3 years ago in 2022). Coming to Toxic, it has similar coverage beyond press-releases, including in the American media such as Variety, Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, to name a few. Not that Indian cinema needs validation from the West, but that sadly seems to be the case with Wikipedia. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Indian cinema shouldn't need validation from the West. However, it must still have significant coverage that shows how it is notable. Mickey 17 is an WP:OSE argument. Looking at the press for this film which you cited above, they are all based on press releases and are simple churnalism. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing even the American media houses like Variety, Deadline Hollywood, and The Hollywood Reporter of paid "churnalism" when it comes to reporting on Indian cinema? Also, OSE is an essay and not a policy, and as valid as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am making that accusation. But, keep in mind that churnalism doesn't need to be "paid." I think you are making an accusation that I am pulling things out of my rear with the IDONTLIKEIT comment. If so, please remember WP:CIVIL. If I read that wrong, then my apologies in advance. As far as OSE, one cannot dismiss it just for being an essay. It is widely cited and applies regularly in deletion discussions.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IDONTLIKEIT is as "widely cited" as OSE and is not a CIVIL violation. Even so, my statement was "OSE is an essay and not a policy, and as valid as IDONTLIKEIT", which in no way was directed *at* you. I have been perfectly civil with you, so please do not accuse me of doing things that I'm not doing. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misinterpret what I said. I never accused you of being uncivil. I merely explained how I interpreted what you said and actually apologized in advance if I read it wrong (written words are hard to interpret at times). --CNMall41 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've taken a look at the sourcing and offhand, I have to say that I'm going to say that I'm kind of undecided on whether or not this passes NFF. The basic question we need to answer here is this: if the film were to never release, is the current sourcing enough to pass NFF?

The film industry in India is particularly prone to churnalism. That's kind of a fact of life, so when it comes to sourcing we can't just look at the quantity and publications - we have to look at the content as well. Offhand, I can't help but notice that the coverage is predominantly pre-filming. There's a decent variety of coverage here, as it's not too overly repetitive (ie, not all based on the same handful of press releases). However I'd like to see more coverage of the filming process, as it's not really resolving that basic question/concern. The Variety source is OK, however coverage of trailers tends to be seen as routine unless we have some sort of reaction to the trailer - like a review of sorts. That's missing in this Variety source, however I will note that I found it in this Collider source.

Offhand I'd like to look for more here. It's heartening to see that coverage for this is still rolling in, even with the absence of a set release date. It's not a situation where filming ended and there's just almost complete silence - the current coverage does give off the impression that it will release eventually. The question here is whether or not any of that coverage contains sourcing that could help show this passes NFF. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This film clearly meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for films (NFF), thanks to the wide range of independent and credible sources covering it. Outlets like Variety and Collider are reputable and provide detailed information about the film's production and promotion. Yes, a lot of the coverage so far focuses on pre-filming, but that's completely normal for any film, especially one that's building buzz. Early coverage is part of how films establish their presence in the public eye. And here's the thing, as mentioned by ReaderofthePack, the coverage is still coming in, even without a set release date. There are no signs or credible reports indicating that the film won't release, so assuming otherwise would be speculative and just assumptions. On the contrary, the ongoing and consistent media attention suggests strong interest and momentum behind the project. The argument about 'churnalism' in the Indian film industry also feels overly broad. Sure, some media outlets might lean promotional, but you can't paint all coverage with the same brush. Notable global names like Variety, Deadline, Hollywood Reporter and Collider have written about this film. Finally, Wikipedia shouldn't focus on predicting the future and focus documenting what's notable right now. And based on the sourcing and interest this film has already generated, it's clearly notable. Shecose (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not all coverage is painted with the same brush. However, it is not an overly broad assertion since the community has come to a consensus and created an information section about it called WP:NEWSORGINDIA. It is also concerning that you have bludgeoned the process in order to help promote the film. Wikipedia is not here as a promotional tool for film studios. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We both edit warred to maintain our views regarding this article. Repeatedly re-draftifying the article after objections from others and redirecting it thrice despite being edited by multiple editors without any discussion, is also a significant concern, also shared by others in the 3RR. You have also acted in a hostile manner towards me by reporting me in various places for questioning your actions while preaching cooperation and civility to others (as above). Now that we are here, let's focus on discussing the article and its notability. The article clearly meets the notability criteria based on the provided references. Also, I'm not sure how much you understand about films and fandom culture in India. Fans often get excited about their stars and their films, leading them to search and edit in this space. However, this doesn't necessarily mean they are promoting the film. Shecose (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian phonk

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

Expired then contested PROD. Concern was: The article's text is overly promotional and almost all claims failed verification from cited sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Brazil. UtherSRG (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phonk#Subgenres – As WP:ATD. The rhythm is not notable for its own article, but it can be mentioned in the aforementioned section. Svartner (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep or soft redirect to wikt:Brazilian phonk. Phonk editors rejected it within the subgenre section. It will probably never be there. Maybe in Funk carioca. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Anglican Church of North America

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

I find no evidence that this organization passes WP:GNG or ever did. Its website is inactive, but archived versions ([4], [5]) have no listing of member congregations, and it appears that if it ever did have congregations they must have been very few. It is not mentioned in the two standard reference works on American Christian denominations (Kurian & Lamport or Melton, and Melton includes even the very smallest denominations). There is a single mention of it in a New York Times article about a church it supposedly recognized in Venezuela. It existed, that much is true, but beyond that anything that can be said about it fails WP:V. It doesn't reach GNG and it doesn't even reach the looser threshold described at WP:RELIGIONOUTCOMES. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Texas. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Weinreich

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

None of the articles are directly about the subject. Coverage is trivial. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to SixDegrees.com mentioned in [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], as one of the earlier social networking entrepreneurs. Andre🚐 07:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks significant coverage

Firecat (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helicarrier

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

This fails WP:SIGCOV. Most of the references are listicles that are either unreliable or not significant outside of discussions of Marvel and [S.H.I.E.L.D.]]. This could be redirected to S.H.I.E.L.D. with any passing mentions in sources that can be salvaged. Jontesta (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with the vehicles section of Features of the Marvel Universe in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moog Model 15

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

Wikipedia is not an advertizing tool. Information about this app can live as one line in the Moog wikipedia page and doesn't need a dedicated page. Warmonger123 (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid reason for deletion has been given: the article is not promotional in the sense meant on Wikipedia and, per WP:NOMERGE, a merge should be avoided if "the separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles". While I'm not the biggest fan of stubs, the following significant coverage from reliable sources shows a pass of WP:GNG and the possibility of expansion: Engadget: [12] [13] [14], Wired: [15], Sound on Sound: [16], MusicRadar: [17] [18], MusicTech: [19] [20], Sonicstate: [21] [22]. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 21:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]