Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

26 March 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

< March 25	March 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Navrajvir Singh

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

Lacks Notability. Given Sources are primary. No significant coverage in Independent Sources. Rahmatula786 (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Entertainment, and India. Rahmatula786 (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jauwad Hassan

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

The bio fails WP GNG, NPOL, AUTHOR (journalist). Promotional and lacking RS Cinder painter (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

K-dron

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

Fails to meet WP:CRITERIA per lack of supported sources in Google Books and Scholars; only one or two. Some possible plagiarism detected in [1], which translates from Polish to English. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:21, 19 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 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Mathematically this is not of significance but the question is whether we can find enough coverage of this as a design element to make up for that. Skipping all Kapusta-authored sources as non-independent, the Górska source is independent but does not provide in-depth coverage, and neither does Moskal, "Virtual and Real: K-dron and light", in SIGGRAPH 2004, despite its title. Other sources I looked at, that mention K-drons but without in-depth coverage of the shape itself, are Żarinow's "Recepcja scenografii w Polsce wczoraj i dziś", Możdżyński's "Naukowe Fascynacje Sztuki. Przegląd Arbitralny", Orzechowski's "Teaching Drawing, Painting and Sculpture at the Faculty of Architecture of the Warsaw University of Technology, classics and modernity", Smith's "From here to infinity" [2], and Kraus's All the Art That's Fit to Print [3]. [4] and [5] have some depth but I am skeptical of their independence and reliability. The Kapproff book is independent, reliably published, and with in-depth coverage, but it is only one source; we need multiple such sources. [6] is paywalled so I could not check its depth. So for now to me this is borderline, but with one more source as good as the Kapproff book I could be pushed to a weak keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:54, 26 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]
Comment I haven't found anything on the archive. For Thornton Hagert, though, there is a 3 column obituary in the Philadelphia Daily News [7]; he was asked by the Smithsonian to recreate a 1924 concert, and produced 10 page liner notes for the resulting album, which was nominated for two Grammys in 1982 (Best Historical Album and Best Liner notes) [8] (album review in the Institute for Studies in American Music Newsletter. here: [9]); review of another album for which he wrote 6 pages of liner notes in The San Francisco Examiner [10] and of another one here [11]; and there are other reviews of his writings coming up in a Google Scholar search. It seems to me that he would probably meet WP:AUTHOR (etc). RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment based on RebeccaGreen's work, would it be sensible to move the current article to Thornton Hagert ("Thornton Hagert was a musicologist and jazz historian who founded the Vernacular Music Archive, an archive...")? Initially, the result would be a bit of a coatrack article, but it would retain what's of use from Vernacular music research, and it would form a stub with the potential to grow into something useful on the man himself. Elemimele (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:54, 26 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." Her overall 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. Per WP:NAUTHOR, references 8 & 9 show she is known for originating a significant new concept, further enhancing her notability. 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 4/23 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]

This was because additional pertinent work had been carried out on the article.--Ipigott (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that she meets WP:AUTHOR. A search of Newspapers.com shows a lot of columnists in other newspapers basing columns on articles by Demsas in The Atlantic and critiquing what she has written. So far I've found examples in The Indianapolis Star, The Herald-Palladium, Sun Journal (Lewiston, Maine), and The San Francisco Examiner, by 5 different columnists. I'll try to add them to the article. (Before searching, I had thought this might be a case of TOOSOON, as she joined The Atlantic only 3 years ago, in 2022. But it's clear that she very quickly had a big impact.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think added refs are examples of WP:SIGCOV. Quotes of her work in independent secondary sources are helpful to expand the article (and I'm thankful to you for doing this research), but there must be some coverage that is directly about her (preferably about her early life, education, career) to pass WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with you; check references 1, 3-5 and 7, particularly such reporting in reference 1.Mwinog2777 (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing the kind of coverage required to meet WP:NJOURNALIST. Some participants above are citing discussion of her work ([12], [13]) as WP:SIGCOV of her, which it's not (that's more of an WP:NACADEMIC criterion). These are mentions, not independent reviews of her body of work required to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Meanwhile, the Bits and Deets article should be deleted as an unreliable blog that scrapes personal info and aggregates it as SEO bait. The rest of the sources appear to be her own work or WP:INTERVIEWs. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Interviews: "A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability." The multiple interviews listed were done by highly reputable outlets, including the New York Times and NPR. The interviews were presented as investigative journalism with the interview material often interspersed with the interviewer's own analysis and thoughts. Please review the interviews. She meets criteria for WP:NAUTHOR as there are multiple reviews of her book, her body of work, as it encompasses her previous columns and essays.Mwinog2777 (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT interview is a podcast interview with Ezra Klein - a classic Q&A primary source interview with no editorial interpolation and no "investigative journalism". The so-called "NPR" interview is actually a PBS interview (these are not the same outlet) and again, it is a Q&A interview with Demsas. These are primary sources and do not count toward notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, mixed up PBS and NPR, my bad. But, disagree, both interviews had in-depth comments by interviewers, particularly the Ezra Klein, even with only a cursory glance.~~~ Mwinog2777 (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Took out original ref. 2 and added another re high school attended. Mwinog2777 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendent Leadership

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

Not sure it's meeting GNG. Heavliy supported by blogs, linkedins posts, strange articles like: 9 things to know.... etc. Cinder painter (talk) 08:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Koko Pee

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

Failing to meet GNG and Anybio; lack of reliable sources; original research and unsourced promotional text Cinder painter (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has failed to meet any criteria under WP:SINGER. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meenal Choubey

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

Mayors are not inherently notable under WP:NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 07:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Chhattisgarh. GrabUp - Talk 07:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the guideline also mentions Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage - there are many news about her from google search.
Uncle Bash007 (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom Hartman Institute

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

Notability. This article is cruft and appears written and edited by a participant. I recommend deletion, it does not appear notable. Ogress 15:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ogress 15:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't verify the Jerusalem Post articles. Bearian (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by NORG, with the initiative merged into it. gidonb (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep - This is an important international educational institution based in Jerusalem, and it certainly deserves to have an article. I’ve tried to provide a few additional sources to help establish its notability, and perhaps it still needs some edits to make it more encyclopaedic. However, I see no reason for it to be deleted entirely. IshtoriHaparchi (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep -. It has been around for almost 50 years and is one of the leading institutes of its kind. The links in the articles prove this without a doubt. Atbannett (talk) 08:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep -. We editors should seek to improve article, rather then delete them if we find imperfections. --CarlSerafino (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many of these are not credible policy-based arguments. However, I've since added WP:RS that establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's less than a consensus here for keep on the basis of policy or guideline interventions. Further discussion on claimed reliable sourcing now in the article (or present elsewhere) would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources have been identified. Here is another one, from the Detroit Jewish News, Shalom Hartman Institute Hosts Learners and Leaders from North America in Jerusalem although it is not fully independent. Here is strong criticism of one of the institute's major programs by a Muslim who was once a fellow there The Failures of an American Muslim and Jewish Dialogue: A former member of a prominent program in which both sides shared perspectives reflects on its shortcomings. Here's coverage in Jewish Chicago, Shalom Hartman Institute comes to Chicago: Jason Rosensweig to become first Chicago director. in In the spirit of full disclosure, I briefly visited this institute in Jerusalem in 2005. Cullen328 (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marss

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

The article have used a lot of unreliable sources and fails WP:GNG. Did WP:BEFORE but found only this trivia coverage from Kotaku [14]; thus zero WP:SIGCOV. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The unfortunate reality is that there just aren't many high quality sources covering esports. ESPN shuttered their coverage, the listings at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Esports are pretty small press, and many are region-specific or esport-specific to MOBAs. However, I think I cobbled together enough from the best sources that were available to pass the bar of WP:GNG. At the time that I wrote the article, they were a professionally signed player with major tournament wins, and considered one of the best players in the world in a notable esport by the community-accepted ranking system (If Red Bull is a RS and they devote extensive coverage to the Panda Global rankings, that should be enough). It's been a long time since I participated in AfD, so I'm out of practice and that's the best argument I can make at this time. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1st ESPN source was good, the 2nd is usable but those are not enough. Other sources might be also reliable, but it just have trivia coverages (not sigcov, and wouldn't notability). 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 07:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samsora

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

Zero WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE shows no reliable sources. Most of the sources that have been used here are mostly unreliable, while other reliable was just he won 2019 but that's it. I'm suspecting Nairo (gamer) has the same fate like this article. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The unfortunate reality is that there just aren't many high quality sources covering esports. ESPN shuttered their coverage, the listings at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Esports are pretty small press, and many are region-specific or esport-specific to MOBAs. However, I think I cobbled together enough from the best sources that were available to pass the bar of WP:GNG. At the time that I wrote the article, they were a professionally signed player with major tournament wins, and considered one of the best players in the world in a notable esport by the community-accepted ranking system (If Red Bull is a RS and they devote extensive coverage to the Panda Global rankings, that should be enough). It's been a long time since I participated in AfD, so I'm out of practice and that's the best argument I can make at this time. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they might be reliable like ESPN, but it has only trivia coverage; thus not a sigcov (wouldn't help its notability). 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 07:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cuckney Hill

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

Cuckney Hill does not meet WP:NGEO guidelines. I can find no significant discussion of it, only mentions of it as a place to drive through and a mention of greenery planted to attract game. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Impacts of restrictive abortion laws in the United States

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

This article fails to adhere to Wikipedia’s core Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy and reads more like an advocacy piece than an encyclopedia article. It presents a highly one-sided narrative, focusing exclusively on negative consequences of restrictive abortion laws without offering counterbalancing perspectives—such as legal, ethical, or public health arguments made by supporters of these laws. For example, the article contains emotionally charged and anecdotal accounts (e.g., detailing the deaths of Josseli Barnica and Nevaeh Crain) in a manner more consistent with journalistic storytelling than encyclopedic writing. It uses loaded phrases like “doctors refused to help”, “hide or ignore the problem”, and “significant suffering for the child”—language that conveys bias rather than neutrality.

Additionally, there is no discussion of constitutional, legal, or moral arguments in favor of abortion restrictions, nor any mention of differing interpretations of maternal or prenatal rights. The article also heavily emphasizes phrases like “birthing people” and “pregnant people," unlike most Wikipedia articles of a similar nature, without acknowledging that this terminology is itself a subject of sociopolitical debate—another example of ideological slant without proper context.

Further, the content of this article could easily be incorporated into one of the many existing articles, such as "Abortion in the United States" or relevant articles relating to abortion laws.. if it can be completely rewritten first. DocZach (talk) 06:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AfD isn't cleanup, and the topic is extensively sourced. Cortador (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico's Next Top Model season 3

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

Redirect, unnecessary. Valorrr (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Valorrr (talk) 05:07, 26 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Frank M. Jackson. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 07:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The Frank M. Jackson that says that this is Conway's triangle notation and cites Yiu? Or the Frank M. Jackson that says that it isn't and cites a paper showing that Yiu was wrong? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My experience is similar to PianoDan's. Excluding the CRC Encyclopaedia, for obvious reasons, I went looking for other sources. Everyone seems to cite either Wikipedia or MathWorld. The 19th century mathematician mentioned above cannot possibly have documented a "Conway" notation 43 years before Conway was born. And indeed xe didn't. There is a nonce $p_{a},p_{b},p_{c}$ notation there, but it isn't attributed to anyone and just called a potencia. MathWorld's article on the notation by Peter Moses traces it back to Yiu, but Yiu simply does not give any citation to Conway for this, unlike for other things. MathWorld's article on the Johnson Triangle attributes this to personal communications from Peter Moses and one … Frank M. Jackson. This is starting to seem very circular. And it's even odder that we are in the situation of a Frank M. Jackson now arguing to keep this article on the basis it is not Conway's triangle notation but is someone else's from the 19th century, outright invalidating the Yiu source that is being proffered at the same time. Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of well-known formulae about the triangle dressed up with a notation for which the name given in the article does not have any reliable reference. If it is used in actual textbooks it could possibly be merged into the triangle article but according to the comments above the name for the notation certainly does not belong on Wikipedia. jraimbau (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now, there is no agreement or consensus on an outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poove Pen Poove

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). No reliable reviews [15], [16], and [17]. Sources in Release section are not specific to this film, but talk about both actors' post debut films' performance.

Source 1 doesn't help much, such sources got Singara Chennai deleted [18]. DareshMohan (talk) 03:30, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tamil films of 2001#July_–_September. Opposed to deletion (notable cast and musicians). -Mushy Yank. 05:57, 26 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: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. 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]
Adding, I can very much sympathize with editors who have had to deal with promotional editing, and I can agree that such disruption should not be rewarded. On the other hand, such edits, once they have been corrected, do not determine the notability of a subject. As I've said, the sourcing to establish notability here is not a slam-dunk, and I can accept that that's open to discussion, but if the page topic is notable, past bad conduct is not a policy-based reason to delete it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much @Tryptofish for taking the time to research for notability citations. It is deeply appreciated. This was quality research. I agree with you that abuse is not enough if a page is salvageable. That is an excellent point you make. The sourcing that you took the time to find, I agree, is not exactly a "slam-dunk." As you kindly opened them to discussion, I evaluated each one and have the following concerns:

The sources provided to support keeping the City Winery article do not appear to me to meet Wikipedia's standards for establishing independent and substantial notability, as outlined in WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Each cited reference is either incidental, promotional, or superficial, failing to offer the depth and independent analysis required by Wikipedia's policies.

The reference from Creating the Hudson River Park by Tom Fox is merely a mention of a business transaction. It indicates only that City Winery signed a lease at Pier 57 along with other businesses during a redevelopment project. Per WP:ROUTINE, such routine coverage does not establish notability beyond a basic directory listing or business note (WP:NOTADIRECTORY), lacking meaningful cultural or independent significance.

Similarly, Weekends in Chicago from the Chicago Tribune Staff functions purely as paid promotional tourism content. According to WP:PROMO and WP:NOTADVERTISING, promotional material highlighting City Winery as one of many "Things to Do" in Chicago, which is an advertisement or paid placement, does not constitute substantial coverage that would establish independent notability.

Likewise, The New Nashville Chef's Table by Stephanie Stewart operates as a promotional cookbook showcasing current Nashville businesses and venues, including City Winery, that happened to be operational and participate at the time of publication. Such material is explicitly promotional, encouraging dining and entertainment patronage, without genuine, independent cultural analysis or historical significance. Accepting this as evidence of notability would set a problematic precedent contradicting WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:NOTADVERTISING, potentially qualifying nearly every business featured in promotional publications as notable.

Finally, Anthony DeCurtis's Lou Reed: A Life only briefly references City Winery in connection with Michael Dorf, who had minor professional ties with Lou Reed. WP:INHERIT explicitly states that notability is not inherited through association. The mention in DeCurtis's biography is peripheral and does not establish independent notability for City Winery. Accepting such a mention as proof of notability would imply that every venue Lou Reed performed at throughout his decades-long career is inherently notable. Given that Lou Reed performed extensively from around 1955 onwards and City Winery only opened for business in 2008, such reasoning would lead to untenable outcomes where countless venues would unjustifiably qualify for standalone Wikipedia articles based solely on association with the musician. Therefore, none of these sources provide the substantial, independent secondary-source coverage required by WP:GNG and WP:ORG to justify retaining the City Winery article on Wikipedia. Qinifer (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I went looking for sources, I made a deliberate effort to avoid the pitfalls that you assert these four sources have. The first one I cited, by M.B. Bailey, which I don't think you commented on, spends a significant amount of text discussing how "City Winery in New York City illustrates how race may overlap with age and venue in Americana." As a secondary source, she also cites how primary opinions by other authors, specifically about City Winery, support this view. This becomes even more significant when taken alongside the source about Lou Reed, because it provides a context in which the page subject is seen by multiple sources as a culturally significant venue for musical performances. As portrayed by the source material, this isn't just any venue where Reed performed. That source also treats Dorf as someone who knew Reed well and was qualified to comment on Reed as a person, and who commented in the context of performance at that venue, in terms of the specific characteristics of that venue. As for the source about real estate by Fox, I can accept your point that it is the weakest of the sources that I chose to cite. But it isn't simply what you call it, "a mention of a business transaction". Rather, the source discusses that transaction in the context of a wider issue about neighborhood development, providing secondary commentary about how it plays a cultural role in the neighborhood. Either I am missing something, or you are mischaracterizing the two other sources, about reviewing the place as a restaurant. I see no evidence that these sources were paid to write about the Winery, or that they were simply repeating press release material. (I discarded other sources I came across, that did seem to me to fail on these points.) The Tribune staff are providing an independent restaurant review, which NORG explicitly distinguishes from paid placement about restaurants, and the Stewart source is a book about a movement or style in cooking, that provides a detailed and multi-page examination of specific dishes from the menu. These are independent sources about the restaurant, and they are far from in-passing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to assess sources carefully. I appreciate the effort to ensure that a fair notability evaluation is made. However, I remain unconvinced that these sources meet the threshold for substantial, independent coverage required by WP:GNG as follows:

But first, my apologies for neglecting the Bailey source. I meant no disrespect. That was an oversight, and I appreciate you pointing it out so that I could properly assess it. I had it open in my browser, read it, and must have mistakenly closed it and overlooked it when actually writing my response (too many tiny tabs open at once). Your work and the article deserve serious consideration.

Upon review, the Bailey source discusses City Winery within the context of a broader analysis of Americana music and its relationship to race and age. While Bailey provides an interesting higher-level discussion, City Winery appears to be one of many venues used as an interchangeable example rather than being the focus of a sustained, in-depth examination of that particular business. Mentions within broader cultural studies do not automatically equate to independent notability for the venue itself, particularly if the analysis is primarily about a musical trend involving numerous equally interchangeable venues rather than City Winery’s unique role within it. If this were a sociological study focused specifically on how City Winery reshaped cultural dynamics, it might be different, but as it stands, this source does not establish lasting significance for City Winery itself.

To clarify by way of example, the Apollo Theater in Harlem is widely recognized as a culturally and historically significant venue. The Apollo is documented in-depth for its role in shaping African American music history and advancing racial integration in not just entertainment, but the world at large. The Apollo was a crucial platform for launching the careers of artists such as Ella Fitzgerald, James Brown, and Aretha Franklin, and remains a symbol of lasting cultural and social impact. Performing at The Apollo is widely considered a milestone in an artist’s career. Playing The Apollo is regarded as a sign that artists have "arrived" at a certain level of prestige. There is no indication that City Winery holds a similar cultural weight or reputation. This extensive, independent, and well-documented influence of significant cultural impact is why the Apollo Theater meets notability requirements to justify a standalone article.

By contrast, City Winery, founded in 2008, is one of many interchangeable venues referenced as part of a larger cultural moment, with no indication that it played a uniquely transformative role in shaping music history or social change like The Apollo has. City Winery is not singled out as particularly noteworthy in its own right. Instead, it is used as one interchangeable data point among many to illustrate a broader trend. For a venue to warrant a standalone article, there must be clear evidence of unique and lasting cultural significance, such as with The Apollo Theater, not just inclusion as an interchangeable example in a broader cultural study. If City Winery had a chapter-length examination detailing its role in shaping a music movement, as The Apollo does, it might be different, but instead, it is presented alongside numerous other interchangeable venues in a way that does not establish individual notability.

Similarly, the Lou Reed source must be considered in context. If City Winery is one of many venues discussed in passing in a biography about Lou Reed, rather than being the subject of meaningful analysis in its own right, it does not meet WP:GNG’s depth requirement. Additionally, WP:NOTINHERITED applies both to the venue and to Dorf. A notable artist performing at a venue does not automatically confer lasting notability upon the venue itself without clear evidence of its distinct cultural impact, as in the Apollo Theater example above. Even if multiple sources acknowledge that Reed performed at City Winery, that alone does not elevate the venue’s independent encyclopedic significance.

Likewise, the fact that Michael Dorf knew Lou Reed does not establish Dorf’s notability in his own right (WP:NOTINHERITED). Many individuals who knew Reed well have contributed substantive statements to biographical works about him, but that does not mean they each warrant their own Wikipedia articles, just as every venue mentioned in the biography does not automatically qualify for a standalone page. Being qualified to provide commentary on a notable person does not justify an article. At most, the commentary used to gather data about Reed supports a citation within the Lou Reed article itself.

Regarding the Fox source, I recognize that it discusses City Winery within a larger conversation about real estate and urban development, but I question whether that discussion is in-depth enough to establish independent notability. If the venue is merely mentioned as one of many businesses affected by real estate trends rather than as a significant cultural entity in its own right, then this coverage does not meet WP:GNG. The source documents business activity at a given moment in time, but it does not assess any lasting cultural impact of the venue itself. At most, it might justify a citation within an article about urban development in that city at that moment in time, but not for a standalone article about City Winery.

I disagree that the restaurant nightlife advertisement publication substantiates notability. WP:NORG explicitly distinguishes between general food reviews, advertisements, and in-depth analysis that establishes lasting significance. These are advertisements and not reviews, however, for argument's sake, even if it were an independent review, it primarily discusses food, ambiance, and service. None of those items contribute to establishing historical or cultural significance. For a venue to meet notability standards, sources would need to analyze its unique role in music, performance, or cultural movements, rather than simply describing it as a location where artists perform and people can go to drink or dine. However, these sources are not in-depth analyses; they are advertising copy submitted to create the nightlife guide, going so far as to include a direct promotional quote from the venue’s manager, which indicates a conflict of interest rather than independent evaluation.

The Weekends in Chicago publication is a curated nightlife guide, composed of PR material and promotional blurbs similar to what would be found in a VisitChicago tourism booklet. It functions not as an independent critical source but as a commercially motivated directory meant to promote local businesses. These are commonly created marketing materials published by newspapers designed to promote commerce in their city. As such, the Weekends publication's purpose is to drive commerce, not to provide critical analysis of historical or cultural impact. Simply being listed among other venues in an entertainment guide is not equivalent to being the subject of sustained, in-depth, independent coverage, as required by WP:GNG.

Additionally, producing promotional recipe books featuring local businesses is a common marketing strategy that does not, in itself, establish significance. These books are often sold commercially, but their purpose is cross-promotional rather than editorial, typically serving as a low-cost marketing gimmick to generate sales within a specific region. Restaurants contribute free recipes in exchange for advertising, making these books a standard promotional tool rather than an independent, in-depth cultural analysis. The inclusion of City Winery in such a publication does not indicate historical or cultural significance, but rather that it was one of many businesses that opted to participate for mutual promotional benefit. These books function primarily as advertising compilations, not as critical examinations of a venue’s lasting impact. As such, they are insufficient to establish notability under WP:GNG.

I acknowledge that some of these sources provide useful context about City Winery, but none appear to provide substantial, sustained, or independent coverage that meets Wikipedia’s notability standards for genuine cultural impact. If more robust sources existed that provided deeper, independent analysis of City Winery’s impact beyond food service and real estate, I would be open to reassessing its notability. However, based on the sources presented, deletion remains the appropriate course of action. Qinifer (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree, and I think at this point, it's best to let other editors form their own opinions about those sources. Again, I appreciate that you must have had quite a bit of aggravation over the promotional editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate that these are not always clear-cut cases, and it’s okay for us to disagree. I genuinely mean it when I say that I appreciate the work and effort you’ve put into this, it’s quality research. We’re both just trying to figure out the best way to apply the guidelines and solve a tricky issue together. I respect both you and the discussion, and I’m glad we could have it. I’ve actually learned a lot from it. Qinifer (talk) 23:54, 14 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is not notable under the policy page. Violates these criteria for inclusion in the Encyclopedia:

- Presumed: Tryptofish did find sources, but 5 news sources covering your business is not significant coverage.

- Independent of the subject: "Each City Winery location is a fully functioning urban winery, importing grapes from all over the world to create unique locally made wines.". That is not a neutral tone. DotesConks (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: none of those 5 sources were news sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, @DotesConks.

My concern, based on this new data, and even with you excellently cleaning up the article to eliminate content that was PR copy taken directly from their website, is that the article will remain unable to be fleshed out into one that meet's Wikipedia standards. The current content of the article is a textbook example of exactly the type of article that should be deleted under WP:NOTDIR (not a directory) and WP:CORPDEPTH (insufficient significant coverage beyond routine business reporting and PR). Wikipedia is not a business directory, and WP:NOTDIR makes it clear that simple listings of businesses do not warrant standalone articles. The content of this article amounts to little more than, "There is a business called City Winery with locations in various cities," which is precisely the kind of business cataloging Wikipedia is not meant to host. If it had meaningful cultural or historical significance (which is difficult to achieve, considering that the business is quite new and thus would be difficult to be of "historical significance"), someone would have written about that instead of just listing its offered services, where it is, and who played there.

The available citations fail to provide substantive coverage of the subject, making it impossible to write a meaningful, encyclopedic article. Instead, as stated above, what exists is a short business listing and advertising PR, because that is all that can be written with the citations available.

Additionally, WP:GNG requires significant, independent, and sustained coverage in reliable sources. However, the sources provided do not offer substantial analysis of City Winery as a unique cultural or business entity in its own right. They are either brief mentions in the context of business listings, passing references in articles about other topics, or promotional content that does not contribute to notability. Without robust secondary sources that provide a deeper examination of the company’s history, influence, or unique contributions, there is no way to expand this article into something encyclopedic.

Furthermore, the fact that notable musicians have performed at City Winery locations does not make the venue itself notable (WP:NOTINHERITED). It is merely a standard business operations statement. It is a concert venue. People perform concerts there. Nothing noteworthy about that basic business function. This is the same flawed reasoning that has led to improper justifications for similar business-oriented articles in the past. A venue's significance must be demonstrated through independent third-party coverage that focuses on the venue itself, not simply by listing artists who have played there.

To clarify:

This is just a "this place exists" article. That is not an encyclopedic reason for inclusion.

Wikipedia is not a business directory or a "document everything" database. It is an encyclopedia, and articles need to demonstrate why a subject matters in a broader historical, cultural, or societal context. Right now, the City Winery article lacks that context entirely.

The article contains: No cultural impact analysis; No historical significance; No indication that it changed or influenced anything; No evidence that it pioneered or defined a movement or trend.

Instead, the article reads like a glorified brochure or Yelp listing:

Here’s a business. Here are some locations. Here are some concerts that happened.

The current citations do not support the capacity for development of a substantial entry. If and when such coverage emerges, an article could be recreated with actual depth. At this stage, however, City Winery does not appear capable of even potentially meeting the threshold for inclusion, and deletion is the most appropriate course of action. Qinifer (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
please stop bludgeoning the discussion @Qinifer or you will lose access to edit it. Star Mississippi 14:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quinifer, this page is ~29,000 bytes; of that, you have contributed nearly 20,000. That is not a demonstration of academic rigour. 2A00:23C7:6BBA:ED01:CA8:12E3:13D0:8A44 (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I think we need to hear from more experienced AFD participants. If you've already made an argument, please give new voices some space to review sources with fresh eyes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This one is a close one given the sources, but while there does seem to be some independent secondary sources, the widespread independent coverage in those sources is lacking based on a cursory search. If further evidence towards widespread coverage, it would be more convincing. It also doesn't help that the article as it is currently written is essentially a WP:PROMOTION. GuardianH 04:46, 26 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]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida, South Carolina, Greece, and History. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Andrew Turnbull (colonist)#Biography – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searching for sources, I find indications that there may be more to her. This source [24] says that she and her husband were two of the earliest members of the South Carolina Medical Society. This source [25] says (in a snippet view) "Maria Gracia Turnbull came over in the Colonial period with her husband ...[she] was a courageous, aristocratic lady, and a true partner of her husband. Not only did she play an important ..." (cut off by the snippet).

I don't know why the misspelled name is used for the article title - 18th and early 19th century sources refer to her as (Mrs) Gracia Turnbull or Maria Gracia Turnbull.

I'll try to work out how to add this to other deletion sorting lists (Greece, Florida, South Carolina) in the hope that editors who work in those areas may have access to more sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen Thank you for your assistance - I tried looking up the South Carolina Medical Society and found the Medical Society of South Carolina, which was founded around the same time (1789), although neither that website nor the organization's history page mention either her nor her husband. Maybe that's a good place to start looking for some other sources that mention her? Alexthegod5 (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen Here's something I just found that might be a good place too, if you or someone else is able to get a copy https://www.amazon.com/MEDICAL-SOCIETY-SOUTH-CAROLINA-Hundred/dp/B000GS75JK Alexthegod5 (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andrew Turnbull (colonist)#Biography – I don't see much notoriety. 190.219.102.197 (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Geschichte (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Urban society in China

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

This page remains an WP:ESSAY without WP:RS. Urbanization in China already covers the topic. Amigao (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page has only two sources and is an essay. The topic is already covered by Urbanization in China. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 06:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, per nom Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although this at times reads like an essay, it is an extremely accurate representation of city life in China. It even has a few references, despite being mostly written in 2007. I cannot vote to delete this in good faith – instead, we should merge into Urbanization in China, Culture of the People's Republic of China, Education in China, Housing in China and other appropriate articles. If someone feels like pulling a WP:HEY by adding more citations and toning down the textbook-style voice, this could easily be kept as well. Toadspike [Talk] 18:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In many respects, this article is much better than Urbanization in China, which is a mess. Toadspike [Talk] 18:31, 16 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!} 02:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Turnher

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

Biography of a porn performer with extravagant claims of notability sourced to a promotional user-generated IMDb biography. Other sources are user-generated or unreliable scraper sites. A WP:BEFORE search only yields a report that the subject got sued. Everything else consists of press releases, cast rosters or award rosters, no substantial secondary source coverage. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sexuality and gender, and New York. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of MLS on ESPN personalities

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

Subject does not appear to have notability as a list topic under WP:LISTN with a complete lack of any type of reliable, secondary sourcing of the group either here or in a BEFORE. Let'srun (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Football, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Please provide me reliable secondary sources that meet WP:NLIST. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MLS on ESPN#Personalities as an ATD. Conyo14 (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, all of the info is unsourced. I oppose a merge on that basis, but am fine with a redirect to that target. Let'srun (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The section is empty, so it would be a redirect to nothing. Conyo14 (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I don't see this as a search term, I see no value in the article. Fails WP:LISTN. Govvy (talk) 10:50, 20 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!} 02:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Davis

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

This article, apart from being a massive WP:BLPCRIME violation, doesn't meet WP:CRIMINAL. A merge is not appropriate per BLPCRIME. This guy was not high profile before the ongoing scandal. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, Cryptocurrency, Events, Argentina, and United States of America. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to $Libra cryptocurrency scandal. As per nominator at the moment this is a WP:BLPCRIME issue (perhaps not a "massive" one IMHO). If his involvement ends up being confirmed with a conviction or other developments arise article history will be there.
Pinging @Cambalachero and @30Four as participants in a related merge discussion on Talk:$Libra cryptocurrency scandal. Oblivy (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to $Libra cryptocurrency scandal. Alternatively, an article on the La Baron family could be created since he's not the only scandal-plagued member of the family. Not notable enough for a standalone article at this time. Giannini Goldman (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Even if Davis is not relevant for a standalone article, a brief "Who is Hayden Davis?" info would be useful in the article about the scandal. But either if the article is merged or deleted, it should ultimately be turned into a redirect. Cambalachero (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a section in $Libra cryptocurrency scandal with subheadings for each of the major players (Davis, Mauricio Novelli, and KIP Protocol) would be useful. Giannini Goldman (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCRIME says the opposite, notwithstanding how useful it would be. We don't name low-profile people who haven't been convicted; this guy hasn't even been charged with a crime yet. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Davis or Novelli are not so low-profile that WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE applies at this point: Novelli has a public Instagram account with 20,000 followers and Argentina is requesting an Interpol notice against Davis (in addition to the in-depth WSJ article on him generally rather than just the 1E and the coverage in Argentina). He's not "low profile" and it wouldn't take much more to give him Wikipedia notability. Giannini Goldman (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having a lot of instagram followers does not make someone not low profile for Wikipedia purposes, nor does Interpol issuing a warrant; if an arrest warrant made someone a public figure, then BLPCRIME would be a dead letter because every criminal would be a public figure. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Realize you're an admin but what standard would you use for "public figure" or "well known"? WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE says: "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own article." It suggests three levels of notoriety: not well-known/low-profile, well-known/public figure but not Wikipedia notable, and Wikipedia notable. Novelli and Davis seem to fit into the middle category and fit the tests described at WP:WIALPI for being high profile without achieving Wiki notability so we should be able to discuss allegations against them covered in multiple reliable sources (without a presumption of conviction) as WP:WELLKNOWN? Giannini Goldman (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My being an admin is irrelevant; sometimes I'm wrong. Maybe the others meet the public figure guideline; I just don't see Davis as meeting that since all of the news stories appear to have only come out because of his alleged involvement in this scheme. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going through the criteria at WP:Who is a low-profile individual and Davis seems to meet all of the criteria for being "high profile" except maybe "eminence"? Even there I think there's a strong argument that he's sought "a position of pre-eminence, power, or authority in a field of research, a sport, a business market, a political sphere, or other area of human endeavor".

I realize that's not a policy but it is linked from WP:PUBLICFIGURE which is policy? Giannini Goldman (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that LOWKEY is generally how we determine who is or is not a public figure. To go through each factor:

Media attention: he's only received any because of the scandal. Using that media attention to establish that an individual is high profile would undermine WP:BLPCRIME because that implies that any person publicly accused of a crime that receives media coverage would be per se high profile.
Promotional activity: I haven't seen any evidence of that. Indeed, TheStreet piece cited in the article states: "It's a pretty staggering climb to notoriety for Davis, the CEO of Kelsier Ventures who was a relatively unheard of Liberty University graduate in crypto media circles before his LIBRA token attracted so much attention that he had to start making the rounds in damage control interviews."
Appearances and performances: again, I haven't seen evidence of appearances other than what TheStreet called "damage control interviews".
Eminence: obviously not.
Behavior pattern and activity level: this factor basically requires that the subject meet BLP1E, which Davis does not.

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the last two messages to the talk page. Hope it's ok to continue there since it's not really about deleting the standalone article. Giannini Goldman (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep the discussion here. Merging is an ATD that can come out of an AfD. RE Special:Diff/1282188829: I don't think there's a contradiction. Media attention needs to be related to someone doing notable things; BLP1E and BLPCRIME make clear that committing a run-of-the-mill crime (in this case, allegedly some sort of fraud) isn't enough. Otherwise, every subway pusher in NYC would be high profile because they'll have been covered by the NY Post, Daily News, 1010 WINS, channel 11, Newsweek, the NY Times, etc. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I'm a bit biased considering I wrote the article. I see plenty of arguments to merge the article to the $Libra cryptocurrency scandal, which is unfortunate for me, but I agree with Giannini Goldman in one regard: there's plenty of RS & good info within those sources to create a potential LeBaron family page & list him there as well. (Redacted) If he is not independently notable now, I am very confident that this article will be restored in due time. I'm willing to accept if this assessment is incorrect, but in my opinion, his activities & resulting controversy with multiple governments (American & Argentine) felt notable. A majority of the information on this page should exist on Wikipedia in some regard, especially considering Davis/Kelsier's role in multiple variations of the same scheme, considering the publications reporting on this. 30Four (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, now that we have a strong Keep, I see no consensus. Ordinarily, I'd close this as a Merge but the nominator has strong objections to that outcome. How about the Redirect option? Does that cross a line for editors sensitive to coverage of low profile indidividuals?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with $Libra cryptocurrency scandal: per nom. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Involve (think tank)

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

This article is not notable per WP:NORG. I have done a thorough WP:BEFORE to the best of my ability. Andrew Cave does not make the charity notable (WP:INHERITORG).

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The Involve Foundation	Self-published, it is primary source.	~ I would think so.	Involve wrote about Involve.	✘ No
Companies House, UK	~ Technically, but are just routine listings.	Government agency. Verified.	Only about Involve.	~ Partial
Friedrich-Elbert-Siftung	Written by independent authors. No affiliation.	Academic paper.	Is only mentioned as a citation. However the concept is the same.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't have enough reliable sources or they are just mentions.Darkm777 (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have been doing my best to learn more, I admit to being quite out of my depth regarding Wikipedia technical conventions, language, etc. so have recused myself from the recent content discussion on the Involve (think-tank) entry. The proposal to delete the Involve entry entirely, however, is a bridge too far, and one I vehemently disagree with. (I strongly suspect that those editors proposing deletion are connected to Involve in some way (or even paid by them?) and simply want to sweep the whole discussion under the carpet.) Think-tanks are a vital part of UK society and this one plays a major role in it. Deleting the entry would be a blatant case of censorship IMHO. Also, the controversy about the Big Tobacco trustee at Involve has apparently resulted in a petition to the UK government petitions service to amend the UK Charities Act so as to close the revolving door between industry lobbyists and charities by introducing a 5-year ban on them taking up trustee posts after leaving their industry position: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/deborah-wa-foulkes_charitygovernance-corruption-bigtobacco-activity-7306164788068306945-dKWb?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&rcm=ACoAAASIBdEB7nQE4xbTkWoM0hmYURwNkITtMeU This petition has acquired the requisite number of preliminary signatures and is now at the checking stage. Once it goes public on the government website people will quite rightly want to inform themselves about the background to it and Wikipedia will have done them a great disservice by deleting the Involve entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chalk giant (talk • contribs) 09:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from accusing a COI or Paid editing with no background. I am sure @Darkm777 would agree. I found the article through random article (alt-shift-x). For the record I have no affiliation with Involve or any comapany/group. "simply want to sweep the whole discussion under the carpet" again, stop accusing editors.

"Think-tanks are a vital part of UK society and this one plays a major role in it. Deleting the entry would be a blatant case of censorship" If you can prove it with references I will withdraw my nom, till then you have no basis that this think tank is notable.

"Also, the controversy about the Big Tobacco trustee at Involve", Please read WP:INHERITORG, the Big Tobacco trustee will not make Involve notable. If you think the petition or the trustee are notable write about them, but the think tank doesn't inherit the notability. Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalk giant I would be glad to reconsider my nomination should you produce some better sources. It doesn't matter how important or popular you think this organization is. If they were popular enough they would have more news coverage and qualify. This is the basis of Wikipedia Notability Guidelines. Darkm777 (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plus one. Same sentiment. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I can't delete this as a Soft Deletion as there is an unbolded Keep vote here. We will need to hear from a few more participants. It would be most helpful if you responded to the source analysis or brought up any new sources you have located.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hershii LiqCour-Jeté

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

Non notable person other than being a contestant on a show Alexthegod5 (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This person competed on a little known drag show for one season to be the "drag queen". Not notable at all. DotesConks (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DotesConks, I'm editing your reply to say "delete". ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanahary I'm not sure why I said oppose there, but thank you for correcting my mistake DotesConks (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How, @DotesConks, is RuPaul's Drag Race a "little known drag show"? I'm not a fan of the (reality show) genre, and have never watched - but I'm well aware of it's existence, that it's shown around the world, and that it spawned an entire franchise. Surely this is very well known (and loved) show. Nfitz (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz Interesting, I have personally never heard of it until right now which is why I thought it was not notable. DotesConks (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has 24 Emmys - and dozens more nominations. It's a massive high-quality well-respected and well-received show for many years. But I guess if one doesn't know. Nfitz (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DotesConks, participants in AFD discussions shouldn't base their arguments on what they know but on their evaluation of sources in the article and ones they find when they do a search. Pleases do your due diligence if you want to fully participate in deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have found some sources covering this person. Yahoo Pride (not sure if that's reliable), Gay Times (not sure of this one either, seems like a lot of "Madonna Stuns in New Selfie" crap), and an interview with Billboard.

I'll also note that "not notable apart from being a contestant on a show" and "the show they competed on is little-known" (which is really not true, it's a famous show) are not policy-based arguments; deletion arguments should derive from the notability guidelines. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This coverage does not seem significant enough to me for this person to meet the GNG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanahary Thank you for the feedback! So just in the future, notability guidelines generally include coverage even if it's (for example) someone who starred in one show or movie? Let me know if I should ask this on your talk page too Alexthegod5 (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone whose entire career (and notability) comes from a TV show appearance can still be notable and meet GNG. It's just unlikely that they would. But take Dorinda Medley for example: she was not a public figure before being cast on the Real Housewives of New York, and now she is an independently notable person. In my opinion, coverage of a person that is about nothing but their time on a reality show (like how Survivor contestants often get a bunch of Entertainment Weekly articles about them and interviews after they're voted off) does not demonstrate notability, but I don't know what the community's consensus on that sort of thing is. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Sexuality and gender, California, Georgia (U.S. state), and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:HEY. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:30, 20 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!} 02:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zombieboy

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

Fails WP:NSONG, which specifies that coverage of a song in the context of album reviews is insufficient to demonstrate notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @RangersRus, who accepted this at AFC. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The song made it to the top charts on UK billboard and on Billboard Hot 100 chart. So it meets the criteria Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. and also has coverage by The Guardian and by Billboard, and Capitalfm, UK's No.1 Hit Music Station. RangersRus (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Charting is not a criterion for notability. That's listed under the following: Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful. The Guardian source is an album review, which the guideline explicitly states does not contribute to notability for a song. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Capitalfm and Billboard have coverage focusing on the song alone. RangersRus (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not enough coverage to establish notability. The Billboard is totally trivial, just "Lady Gaga posts a TikTok" and is not about the song. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: That's not what WP:NSONGS defines as "trivial". Again, please read the rules instead of coming up with your own.

"Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable.

If you find the content of the article trivial, that's your own personal problem. — Amenvodka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 22:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That it excludes unreliable sources does not mean it includes everything not published by an unreliable source. All encyclopedic subjects require WP:SIGCOV. "Lady Gaga posted a TikTok set to this song" does not make this song notable. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mayhem (Lady Gaga album) this doesn't meet WP:NSONGS when the only credible sources outside of album reviews or artist commentary just give brief mentions that are less than a cumulative paragraph. Definitely not sufficient for a separate article, so the draft shouldn't have been accepted at AFC. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment above. RangersRus (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For reference:
Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject^[1] of multiple,^[2] non-trivial^[3] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries or reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.^[4] Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.
Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.
A standalone article about a song should satisfy the above criteria. Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful.
1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)
2. Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Latin Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.
꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other non-substantive detail treatment.
^ The number of reliable sources necessary to establish notability is different for songs from different eras. Reliable sources available (especially online) increases as one approaches the present day.
^ "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. Be careful to check that the musician, record label, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular song/single are in no way affiliated with any third party source.
^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the song/single. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its artist, record label, vendor or agent) have actually considered the song/single notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

Comment. The sources I agree do not have not enough coverage and the ones that do are not independent of the artist. But the song has made it on many charts that are national or significant music or sales charts. Per WP:NSONG, the song meets the criteria Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable). The may be notable is presumptive but not denying notability. I will leave it to this. RangersRus (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to believe "may be notable" is synonymous with "probably notable". That is a common mistake among Wikipedians and is why the "not that it is notable" part gets included (even when often overlooked). Either way, whenever there is little to no coverage from sources that aren't album reviews or artist commentary, it becomes moot whether a song enters any charts. We thus shouldn't assume that charting can compensate for minimal depth in sources that discuss the song at all. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Probably TOOSOON for the song. The Billboard article about the dance trend is probably the best source. Rest are rather trivial coverage. The song was only released this month, probably needs time before the music-consuming public decides if it's the "killer hit of the summer" or some such thing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That chart clause is in the context of things about a song that are positive indicators that a search for coverage would make a case for notability. The coverage is still what establishes notability. Charting does not presume notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that if the song gets popular, people will write about it. That's usually what I've had to wait for when writing articles in the past. The song is big, but not big enough as no one's written about it yet. Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My reply was somehow misplaced—this was a reply to this comment, not yours. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Redirect to the album’s page ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm voting the same as I did for the other recently-nominated Lady Gaga songs. I think a fork from the album article is appropriate given the charting, coverage, and amount of content here. I'd prefer to see this article expanded and improved, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Randompersonediting (✍️•📚) 14:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please make an argument @Randompersonediting ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has enough verifiable content to expand further, including chart performance and critical reception. There's also potential for future updates on live performances and additional media coverage as the Mayhem era continues.--CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CHr0m4tiko0, were you canvassed here on your Talk page? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While the message Another Believer left on CHr0m4tiko0's talk page was given neutral phrasing instead of asking for a specific stance, and thus technically wouldn't count as canvassing, I personally wouldn't be surprised if the intent was to obtain another "keep" vote here. I definitely got suspicious when seeing a quick follow-up complaining about AFD nominations. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more interested in getting editors to collaborate and help improve the article. I am not particularly worried about the outcome of this discussion or what happens to any of the Lady Gaga song articles. I think the topics are notable, but if the articles get moved back into the draft space, who cares. I am not going to lose any sleep over this. I am going to move on to other areas of Wikipedia -- working on Gaga songs hasn't really been enjoyable. Happy editing, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've supported all the song articles from Mayhem because there's clearly a lot of sourced content—chart performance, critical reviews, and more—that can be properly developed in each case. As one of the main contributors to the album article, I’ve often tried to add more material, though some of it gets trimmed for relevance or length. That’s why I support this and the other song pages: to ensure that information has a place if and when it's appropriate to include it. Plus, the era is just getting started—there’s still a lot to come that will further expand these articles. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not every song from the album warrants a page, also let's not perpetuate the misconception that charts entitle them to articles, and critical reviews only count towards notability when they're not just part of general album reviews. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point—I'm not saying charts or reviews alone are enough. Just contributing to what's already there, not creating these pages from scratch. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. We either need better sources or perhaps more support for a Redirect which is typically the outcome in AFDs about songs which have borderline notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gļebs Basins

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

Fails WP:NSKATE, WP:NSPORT, and WP:GNG. No significant coverage found. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Latvia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No Fly List Kids

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

Does not pass WP:NORG. Mentioned in passing in some articles but no sigcov outside of non-independent and opinion sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, and Canada. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, doesn't pass WP:NORG. Media is mostly passing mentions or primary sources. XwycP3 (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Sulivan Sauvey

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

This is technically now a copyright violation because the original frwiki article this is a translation of was deleted (for failing their quite different notability rules). Even if it wasn't I am not sure this passes NEVENT. Coverage is mostly just when it happened, afterwards there's some but not a lot, so idk if WP:LASTING is satisfied: [26] [27] [28] idk if that is enough. Also aforementioned copyright violation PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Police, and France. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IndustryMasters

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

IndustryMasters the company(?) and IndustryMasters the game (formerly IndustryPlayer) fail WP:ORG. I could not find in-depth coverage in reliable sources online.

There are five sources cited but actually eight in total; three are pasted in the middle of the article as external links. Citation 1 is a permanently dead link. Citations 2 to 4 verify that the IndustryMasters website was used to host one event (one game) of a competition in India from 2006 to 2010. Citation 5 does not mention, but is being used to verify the existence of, the event and competition. The first external link is a YouTube video announcing that IndustryMasters won a Learning Technologies Award, a private initiative. The second external link is a WBS source that briefly mentions IndustryMasters twice in the context of the WBS working with them. The Warwick Business School source is an announcement of its partnership with IndustryMasters.

The sourced content does not indicate anything particularly remarkable about the IndustryMasters company(?) and the rest of the article, including information about its gameplay and utility, is wholly unsourced. Its biggest claim to fame is winning an award in 2020 in its niche subset of educational games.

This article was recreated by Sunshinebr after its preceding article IndustryPlayer was deleted on 6 June 2008. Sunshinebr justified the recreation by saying they added sources, but evidently the sources are not in-depth or independent of the company and nobody had bothered scrutinising them until now. All of this article's content was written by Sunshinebr (other users' edits being general cleanup) and nearly all of Sunshinebr's edits are limited to this article.

Seems to me that an article for a non-notable game and later company was recreated and managed to pass unnoticed for several years. Yet through all that time, not one reliable, independent source covered either the game or company in detail, hence a failure of WP:ORG. Yue🌙 01:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Organizations. Yue🌙 01:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bathinda military station firing

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

Does not pass WP:NEVENT. There's news he got sentenced but basically nothing else between or since. Though, I do not know what the names of the event and people would be in the native language, so I could not search that. If notability proving coverage does exist there feel free to present it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and India. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From reviewing news coverage of the event, it seems like an unfortunate outgrowth of a fight amongst soldiers with no lasting significance or broad coverage. I couldn't identify a suitable WP:ATD target either. Longhornsg (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Barton

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

The subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Notably, out of the four articles on the page, two are self-published by the subject. TheWikiholic (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, Music, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: have expanded with book review, radio series review, photo-essay and forthcoming memoir, all sourced. PamD 09:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Presa

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

Non-notable credits, likely to fail WP:N/CREATIVE KH-1 (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All credits may be reviewed as noteworthy, with sources directing to IMDB to prove legitimacy DOANPR (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald L. Palmer

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

Neither the criminal the victims nor the event pass any notability guideline we have, whether for execution or the crime. There are also two criminals and two victims here so if it was notable it should have been written as "Murder of Charles Sponhaltz and Steven Vargo" but it's not notable that way either (unless, I guess, you're using the execution as the claim of notability, but the article doesn't do that successfully either). Redirect to List of people executed in Ohio, where he is listed? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Ohio. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Isla Bell

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

Does not pass WP:NEVENT. Sources are all thing happened with little commentary, making them WP:PRIMARYNEWS PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Australia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: I do not know what the moderators, other editors would like. Australia is different to the US/UK - we do not have talk shows that discuss events. We have the news bulletins on television/radio and the newspapers. This is an on-going case and the comments section of any article about this (when opened) shows how outraged Australians are over this.

A young woman was taken, murdered, then her body dumped - Wikipedia has articles about a lot less. The trial, details of this are still yet to come; anticipating it to be a big trial with lots of information/evidence etc to be released (because we are in pre-trial stage so not everything is released - that would destroy the prosecutors case) someone took the initiative to start a page and start compiling the information and what because the Made for TV Movie isn't already being developed it's not enough for editors to warrant a page.

For the record there are other things happening in Australia as well; the Brisbane Olympic Games finally announced what they are doing, we had the Federal Budget handed down, we have an impending Election which is all taking up news time but because this isn't top story every night "WELP The world doesn't need to know about another woman killed by a man"? It's already a growing pandemic and you want to be part of hiding the numbers and sweeping stories about it under the rug?

Let's not forget the precedent you are setting here now... any crime that happens in the world NOTHING is allowed to be posted here until the court case is finalised and ALL evidence is available. NOTED! Thepeoplesdude (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read it WP:NEVENT. This wouldn't be notable if it had happened in America either. There are a lot of murders. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources I found are from November 2024. No lasting impact or coverage. Fails WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an on-going case with numerous court cases to play out. There were articles posted today and there is outrage in Australia about this. Did you bother to attempt to search before deciding a case you have never heard of isn't worthy? Why because it's Australian? Do we have to tear buildings down or ensure it is the only thing anyone in the country can think about for it to be worthy of a wikipedia article.

Thought this of all places would be one you would need to fact check or resource check... guess not! Just list things for deletion we don't like... wait here I'll go get a list of pages I don't like and we can list them for deletion too. Thepeoplesdude (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Meerut Merchant Navy officer murder

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

Does not pass WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and India. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[subject-1] The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other non-substantive detail treatment.

[multiple-2] The number of reliable sources necessary to establish notability is different for songs from different eras. Reliable sources available (especially online) increases as one approaches the present day.

[nontrivial-3] "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. Be careful to check that the musician, record label, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular song/single are in no way affiliated with any third party source.

[4] Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the song/single. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its artist, record label, vendor or agent) have actually considered the song/single notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]