Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

8 April 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

< April 07	April 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Intec Digital

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

Although I'm on the fence, I don't think this organization meets GNG. Of the four sources listed, two are unreliable (i.e., Facebook and Discogs) and one lacks SIGCOV (i.e., DJ Mag). I found an interview in Vice [1] with a paragraph about the company, as well as post at EDM House Network [2], though that could be a press release. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grand National Unity Party

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

Delete – The article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for organizations.

- **No direct sources**: There are no independent, verifiable sources directly covering the subject. - **Lack of references**: No reliable references exist to establish the significance of this political party. - **Fails WP:GNG**: The article does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines. - **Violates Wikipedia’s sourcing policies**: This article fails to provide reliable sources and lacks independent sources, violating Wikipedia’s verifiability policy.

For these reasons, I support the deletion of this article. --Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:52, 31 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 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand National Unity Party (2nd nomination), which has attracted a delete !vote, despite this nomination still being open and linked from the article. I note this for the benefit of any potential closing admin and/or relister. (I have no opinion on the article.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wcquidditch It was just a mistake on my part to create a second deletion nomination page. It was my first time creating a deletion page. I apologize for my mistake. Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a supplement to the reason for deletion, this Wikipedia article has referenced articles and bibliographies, but they are not about the Grand National Unity Party, which is the main topic of the Wikipedia article, but merely about people who appear in the Grand National Unity Party article in the course of discussing it. As such, they do not constitute evidence for the Grand National Unity Party, and there is no mention of the Grand National Unity Party in the article. Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Rizvi

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

Draft on this subject was declined multiple times due to lack of notability. Since it was still under process of improvisation, editor has blanked the draft and moved the article into main space. Article doesn't meet BLP criteria. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Spirituality. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, Bihar, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tried to find some sources, but failed to do so. The subject does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NBIO as of now. Taabii (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I implore all of you to look at the sources provided already. Multiple established Canadian news articles (National Post, Toronto Sun, Toronto Star), JSTOR, and published books. BurimKazimi (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An editor on a similar forum says about a separate article, "My search through Google resources (e.g. Google Books, Google Scholar) and provincial archives (accessed through Vancouver City archives and UBC archives) yielded no in-depth coverage by reliable sources." This editor, regarding that article, is correct. See for yourself. Please note that this subject, however, must be far from such criteria, as subject is established clearly in Google Books, provincial news (National Post, Toronto Sun, Toronto Star,) Toronto city archives (multiple examples, some front-page,) JSTOR, and MEMRI. BurimKazimi (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please identify this sourcing not just vague waves
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're all in the article. BurimKazimi (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna do a source assessment: Refs 1, 2, 12, 13, 15, 17 have short quotes from Rizvi on other topics and do not count towards the GNG. Ref 3 quotes Rizvi extensively – not sigcov about him, but this indicates to me that he is a subject-matter expert. Ref 4 mentions that Muhammad Rizvi's father was a "well-known Shia imam and writer" but doesn't have sigcov of the son. Ref 5 is an obituary for the father which briefly mention's the son's job, not sigcov. Ref 6 has long quotes from him and mentions that a school he was affiliated with was suspended, not quite sigcov but closer. Ref 7 is a short biography, definitely sigcov, but it is not really independent, given it seems to be hosted by an online school he works for. I don't have access to the book cited in ref 8, so I cannot judge it. Ref 9 doesn't have the title of the article, so I can't find it on ProQuest. Ref 10 quotes Rizvi extensively but from the part I can see doesn't give much information about him beyond his job. Ref 11 is a passing mention. Ref 14 has longer quotes from Rizvi. Ref 16 is just a photo. Refs 18, 19, and 20 are about a document he signed along with a large number of other people; they do not contain sigcov, simply listing his name once or not mentioning him at all. Ref 21 is a long quote from him, from a source of dubious reliability (WP:MEMRI). Ref 22 is a scholarly source that extensively references Rizvi's writing and at one point criticizes it – if we had more sources like this, we might meet WP:NAUTHOR, but one alone is not enough, and this is not sigcov about him. Ref 23 is a biography (sigcov), but it is not clear to me if it is independent. Ref 24 is the only source that definitely counts toward the GNG.
Based on the sourcing in the article alone I lean towards !voting weak delete, but he does seem to be an influential and oft-cited expert on religious matters. Toadspike [Talk] 09:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a few spot checks, starting with the JSTOR source, and came to much the same conclusions. The sourcing to a photograph of 3 blokes standing around is one of the particularly poor pieces of sourcing. Surely there was a piece that had words in it, to accompany the photograph! Uncle G (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Regarding the photograph, I agree with you, but it isn't a standalone source. In fact it was only put there to strengthen the validity of the article it came from, which was linked right before it. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1347284623 BurimKazimi (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike I appreciate the breakdown, you bring up valid points. Might I ask if there's a way to refine the article instead? I daresay I've come across pages that are less-cited and poorly formatted, and still exist. The subject is still a religious leader (who has participated in numerous published multifaith initiatives) and the rep. of Ali al Sistani to Canada. BurimKazimi (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also (this is to everyone,) al-Islam.org is an independent non-profit organization which features work from international scholars. To me it is a reliable source, although I want to hear the assessment of this forum first. BurimKazimi (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Might I ask if there's a way to refine the article instead? No, the notability of a subject is determined by the sources about the subject (here Muhammad Rizvi), not the state of the article. The article can be ten times as long, or only two sentences long, and it wouldn't really make a difference to this discussion. But if you can find more sources that provide significant coverage of Rizvi, that would help.

Thank you for the information about al-Islam.org. Their non-profit status isn't as important as whether they have any interest in promoting Rizvi. Unlike Hawza Online, al-Islam.org doesn't list Rizvi as a paid employee. But they do host a huge amount of his writing (297 media, 22 books, and 20 articles, to be precise), which is not ideal.

I agree that the subject is a religious leader who is very well-known, and some of these sources are decent – hence my weak delete !vote. But I haven't been able to find anything more, except short mentions like here. There are also more articles about the school materials incident, [3] and [4], (which I cannot access due to paywalls) and some others. He is really on the edge of the GNG, and different editors may see this differently. Toadspike [Talk] 18:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jaffari Community Centre where he seems to work. Not notable as a stand alone article. Not really notable figure. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relist - is the suggested merge appropriate? Can anyone turn up other sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vasu Raja

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

Lacks notable, verifiable sources proving his subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a person. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Aviation, Maryland, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Vasu Raja was the high-profile architect of the world's largest airline's commercial strategy including a unique take on distribution for two years before being forced out and continues to be a notable industry expert. He has sufficient coverage to meet the general notability guideline and curious whether a search was done before nomination. Avgeekamfot (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Seems to be written by a Senior Contributor (which I think is a staff position), Forbes [5]. Not an extensive amount of sourcing, but there is some. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think notability was just temporary based on reading few sources from google search. WP:NTEMP Asteramellus (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The independent and secondary coverage (such as this piece in the WSJ) focuses on his firing from American Airlines, making this a case of WP:BLP1E. The rest of the coverage of him separate from his turbulent tenure at AA is non-independent, primary and/or trivial. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at all. Just a person who got a job. Reads lika a resume. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Differentiable vector–valued functions from Euclidean space

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

Differentiable vector–valued functions from Euclidean space has interrelated issues. I'm not able to find other sources than the sole one that the article cites (F. Trèves' book on topological vector spaces). I think inasmuch as it is different from just, multivariable differential calculus, it is not a notable topic—in that sense, it may be seen a content fork, where the page is about an obscure TVS approach to a well-known topic that probably doesn't merit coverage on the article about the latter. It is also written in WP:NOTTEXTBOOK-like style, quite closesly paraphrasing Trèves. For example, the portion starting at Differentiable vector–valued functions from Euclidean space#Space of Ck functions corresponds tightly to the portion of Trèves starting at Notation 40.1; see an example of this below:

Article:

Suppose $\Omega _{1}\subseteq \Omega _{2}\subseteq \cdots$ is a sequence of relatively compact open subsets of $\Omega$ whose union is $\Omega$ and that satisfy ${\overline {\Omega _{i}}}\subseteq \Omega _{i+1}$ for all $i.$ Suppose that $\left(V_{\alpha }\right)_{\alpha \in A}$ is a basis of neighborhoods of the origin in $Y.$ Then for any integer $\ell <k+1,$ the sets: ${\mathcal {U}}_{i,\ell ,\alpha }:=\left\{f\in C^{k}(\Omega ;Y):\left(\partial /\partial p\right)^{q}f(p)\in U_{\alpha }{\text{ for all }}p\in \Omega _{i}{\text{ and all }}q\in \mathbb {N} ^{n},|q|\leq \ell \right\}$ form a basis of neighborhoods of the origin for $C^{k}(\Omega ;Y)$ as $i,$ $\ell ,$ and $\alpha \in A$ vary in all possible ways.

Trèves:

Consider a sequence $\Omega _{1}\subset \Omega _{2}\subset \dots \subset \Omega _{j}\subset \dots$ of relatively compact open subsets of $Y$ whose union is equal to $Y$ , an arbitrary integer $l<k+1$ , a basis of neighborhoods of zero in $E$ , [namely] $\{U_{\alpha }\}$ . As $j,l$ and $\alpha$ vary in all possible ways, the subsets of $C^{k}(Y;E)$ , ${\mathcal {U}}_{j,l,\alpha }=\left\{{\underline {f}}:\left(\partial /\partial y\right)^{q}{\underline {f}}(y)\in U_{\alpha }{\text{ for all }}y\in \Omega _{j}{\text{ and all }}q\in \mathbb {N} ^{n},|q|\leq l\right\},$ form a basis of neighborhoods of zero for the $C^{k}$ topology.

ByVarying | talk 02:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I do not agree with your assertion about a lack of noteworthiness. Also, the topic is substantially different from multivariate calculus. Topological vector spaces are certainly noteworthy, and since differentiability is a corner stone in analysis, it is clear, that differentiable functions with values in such spaces are also noteworthy. The classical definition of differentiability is based on norms (see, for instance, Jean Dieudonné's textbook "Foundations of Modern Analysis"). This classical approach does not work for functions with values in topological vector spaces. So this article has very little to do with multivariate differential calculus. It is a keep. 51.154.152.231 (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I say notable, I'm talking about WP:N. Being tangentially related to notable topics doesn't make something notable; substantial coverage in RS does. ByVarying | talk 00:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some^[1]^[2] Advanced Calculus texts use the approach of maps between finite dimensional vector spaces. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge it seems like a content issue and the deletion is not need to solve such an issue. Perhaps the article should be merged into some other articles? —- Taku (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems ot have coverage in sources, but editors seem to not provide citations inside. this happens a lot in math heavy articles. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cook, James S. (Fall 2013). Lecture Notes for Advanced Calculus (PDF). Liberty University - Department of Mathematics. Retrieved April 2, 2025.
^ LOOMIS, LYNN H.; STERNBERG, SHLOMO (1989). Advanced Calculus (PDF) (Revised ed.). Jones and Bartlett. Retrieved April 2, 2025.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy-based input, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Chibueze

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. No independent reliable coverage; most of the coverage consists of "Chibueze said," "Chibueze told," "Chibueze commented," etc. Cinder painter (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect: to PiggyVest, there seems to be more coverage about the compnay than about his person. He's also the founder... Wired seems to be the best source, but it hardly talks about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Does PiggyVest exists? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would likely have to be created. It seems notable, most of the coverage here used for this person is about the company. Oaktree b (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirecting to a non-existent article is not a viable option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more sources added and now pass WP:NBASIC for multiple mentions in several credible and reliable independent third party sources. Omaojo (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article now has a whole lot of WP:CITEKILL. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not look notable. He is just an entrpreneur and doe snot display exceptional charcteristcs for a stand alone article. No article exists for PiggyVest either so redirect is not a good alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaics in Asia

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

I don't see how this is one topic, and not just a grouping of topics across two characteristics (mosaics from certain regions / influences, and certain regions in Asia) which have no real common ground. I could find no good sources for this topic as a whole (looking for this gave results about mosaics in Asia Minor, which is not the same of course). Fram (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Asia. Fram (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the article lacks a common bond of mosaics in the different regions, I think some of the content is good. Mosaic is overwhelmingly about Europe (and it should make better use of summary style with its subpages), but the Middle Eastern and Western Asian section is relatively short and there is nothing at all about East or Southeast Asian mosaic art. This is a new article from a new user, so I would recommend they consider merging some information or working on it as a draft. Reywas92^Talk 15:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftification and splitting into separate articles may be best. Fram (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced and very detailed, the stand-alone visual arts article presents the topic in an adequate encyclopedic fashion. Not long enough for a split, and no need to think along those lines. The page covers what it intends to cover, per title. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are about the topic (as a whole, not about some subtopic)? Fram (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources tie together around their common connections: mosaics and their existence in the continent of Asia. Asians artistic crafting of mosaics make for a well-done informative article. Nothing broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really how it should work though. If there are no sources treating them as one subject, we shouldn't either. It gives the impression that there is some common characteristic setting them apart from mosaics in other continents, as studied or described by reliable sources. Fram (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't found any sources covering Mosaics in Asia as a whole (in a fairly minimal search, I must admit). I agree that sections of this article are worth keeping, perhaps as separate articles or in the Mosaic article. I did note that searching various terms, including "Asian mosaics", brought up several sources about Central Asian mosaics, both ancient and modern, eg 14th and 15th century mosaics in Samarkhand and Bukhara, and 20th century mosaics on pre-fab apartments in Tashkent [6]. This topic does not seem to be covered anywhere, not even in this article on Mosaics in Asia (and their existence brings into question the statement in the Mosaic article that "Mosaics generally went out of fashion in the Islamic world after the 8th century." RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - I understand the rationale for the nom, but I lean towards an "Ignore all rules" K*eep if there is such a thing. (Note this is the first time I've ever suggested IAR.) When I consider if the the encyclopedia is better or worse off with this new article, ripe for improvement, the solid answer is that it is a positive contribution that betters the encyclopedia. I agree that there is some good content here and that the overall subject is relevant to WP's readership. The article is only one week old, and can be improved in terms of sourcing and format. A quick BEFORE finds many articles on JSTOR about mosaics that exist in Asian countries, but I have not had the time to read them all to understand if they discuss the entire Asian continent as a whole. Perhaps this is an emerging field in art history/archaeology. I think the article needs more time for the new editor to develop it, but it is not so "broken" that it needs to be draftified at this time. A simple "under construction" maintenance tag may be the solution. That and encouragement directed to the newbie editor, Jaynentu who created it. Netherzone (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate all the editors for your time and feedbacks. I do find more valuable sources for developing to improve the content. Certainly more time and suggestions would help to organize this work. Jaynentu (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaynentu, do you have sources that you can present here that discuss the topic of Mosaics in Asia as a whole? That would be really helpful. Netherzone (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks well sourced. The topic is broad. Can be improved either way. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has numerous problems (see talk page). Problems include excessive citations, reliance on self-published sources, and being mostly edited by a single user. 1101 (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This was snow closed as Keep in November and notability is not temporary. Further, AfD is not cleanup. There's no valid reason for deletion given in the nom. BusterD (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination statement does not give a valid reason for deletion and there does not appear to be any other reason to delete this article. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nanochannel glass materials

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

Article about arrays of nanoscale glass holes; not to be confused with Nanopipettes or Anodized Aluminum Oxide. Article is based upon a NRL development or patent, and a single NRL science paper where these were used as a template for deposition.^[1] While that is an interesting paper, it did not get adopted by the community, having 86 total cites as of March 2025, which is not large for a high-profile journal. No indications of general notability, certainly not compared to nanopipettes and other types of nanoscale piping in microfluidics or similar systems which are different. Hence fails notability criteria for retention.

Article was PROD'd by nominator, with a PROD2 by User:Bieran. Prod was opposed by User:Mark viking who added sources on nanoscale glass pipettes, and argued (see Talk) that the article is about nanoscale channels, which it was not. Note that the sources added are for single pipettes, not arrays. Options are:

Delete
Keep
Redirect to nanopipette, i.e. keeping such pipettes as a topic that is notable, but acknowledging that what is currently here is different, i.e. abandoning the array concept. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would think a merge best here. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect is acceptable to me. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has decent number of sources. However it relies too much on primary sources. I have seen worse. Ramos1990 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaqua

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

Zero in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable sources. Redirect was reverted with the rationale, "Bonaqua isn't a really known brand and it doesn't have major companies as sources. There are plenty similar pages with less in depth analysis and evidence. I believe Onel shouldn't just delete someone's entire page based of their own personal opinion. The facts are as accurate as they get, it's literally from Swire's own website. With this said, DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE AGAIN." However, without in-depth sourcing, does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bonaqua appears to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Independent and reliable sources, such as Retail Asia, Marketing Interactive, Macau Business, and Taiwan News, provide significant coverage of the brand, particularly its market leadership in Hong Kong (verified by Nielsen data) and its notable sustainability initiatives like the launch of label-less bottles and returnable glass bottles. The brand has also received industry awards for its sustainability efforts. While the current Wikipedia article relies heavily on primary sources, the existence of substantial independent coverage demonstrates that the topic is notable and verifiable. The article should be improved by incorporating these independent sources. --Xrimonciam (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please supply those sources? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xrimonciam (talk · contribs), would you provide a summary of or links to the sources you found as that would strengthen your argument for retention? Thank you. Cunard (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep, at worst draftify. The entry is false in that Bonaqua is sold in many other places than Hong Kong. For instance in Norway, where it is a long-lasting and ubiquitous water brand in segments such as natural mineral water and flavored non-carbonated water. Here is some coverage, mainly about how the production in Fyresdal was set up: [7] [8] [9]. The market shares are often covered, this regards Bonaqua's challenge towards the two market leaders, Ringnes' Imsdal [no] and Hansa Borg's Olden (water) [no]. [10] As a curiosity, here are two product tests from Dagens Næringsliv, in which Bonaqua scored 3 points out of 10, one point lower than tapwater. [11] [12]. It is bad that the article currently has these dreadful sources, something should be done in order to strengthen my keep stance. Geschichte (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about, we change the title to Bonaqua (Hong Kong). Now, mostly the page is written by me. I do agree that the sources are lacking but it doesnt justify just deleting the whole thing. As a Hong Konger, Bonaqua is a water brand of Hong Kong. Its distribution in Hong Kong is handled by Swire, not coca cola and the Bonaqua sold in other countries arent exactly the same as ours, therefore i believe they're not even the same brand but just different projects by coca cola under the same product name? SmartDio97 (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have independent sources that detail all of that info, we would be well on our way to keeping the article Geschichte (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coca Cola (or Swire if that is more appropriate). None of the sources in the article are independent, and I do not find independent sources. Draftify More sources have been found although none are extensive. For example, the Norwegian ones listed here are routine company news. It is possible that when the article is expanded to include more of the markets for this product that the sum of the sources will reach GNG/NCORP. Lamona (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that's some low writesmenship SmartDio97 (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, was that a comment to me? Lamona (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested: there is a real lack of significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. The sources found by Geschichte.
2. Manning, Paul (2012). The Semiotics of Drink and Drinking. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 86–87, 92–93, 227. ISBN 978-1-4411-3774-6. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes on page 87: "I will begin with a discussion of the newer, and more familiar, of the two products, purified waters like BonAqua, turning then to natural mineral waters whose properties, stabilized in the nineteenth century, are largely continued under socialism by Borjomi. ... The qualities of BonAqua: One of the qualities that is central to all drinking water is purity, meaning first and foremost that water is wholesome and safe to drink. But of all the different forms of water that fit this description, only one relatively recent variety emerging in America in the 1990s — ‘purified’ bottled waters like BonAqua — is actually marketed in specifically these terms."
  The book notes on page 92: "BonAqua, by contrast, is like most other product names in that it is a trademark, referring to a specific, non-geographically localized personalistic producer, a firm or undertaking (Schechter 1927, Davis 2008, Bently 2008). Geographical indications (Borjomi) and trademarks (BonAqua) do similar semiotic work ..."
  The book notes on page 93: "By contrast, BonAqua is like many contemporary Western brand names in that it conjures up a vague almost Esperanto-like hint of descriptiveness, which might just be translated as ‘good water’ if there were any Romance language (including Esperanto) in which Bon Aqua meant ‘good water’, which there is not. By contrast, the Western version of the brand name, Dasani, is purely arbitrary, apparently chosen when consumer testing revealed that the name suggested ‘purity’ and ‘replenishment’. The point is that neither name is descriptive of any product qualities (therefore, not technically referentially misleading), but both are felt, in different ways, to be suggestive of some of the product qualities."
  The book notes on page 227: "This brand is also known as BonAqua/BonAqa/Bonaqua in different parts of Europe, Asia, Africa and Eurasia, and Aquabona in Spain."
3. Wong, Chi Bo; Law, Monica; Wu, Wing Chi Branda (2023). "Determinants of Customer Loyalty: A Green Marketing Perspective". In Chen, Fanyu; Choo, Keng Soon William; Voon, Hsien Lee; Chooi, Yi Wei (eds.). Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Business, Accounting, Finance and Economics (BAFE 2022). Paris: Atlantis Press. ISBN 978-2-4940-6999-2. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Google Books.
  The book notes on page 448: "The green product investigated in this research is Bonaqua, a bottled water brand in Hong Kong. In response to the changing behaviours of Bonaqua’s consumers, the firm has set an example by launching a comprehensive green marketing campaign that includes a mode of repackaging that involves the reduction of plastic bottle waste and the rolling out of environmental advertisements to reinforce the firm’s green efforts and positioning in the market."
  The book notes on pages 456–457: "This result implies Bonaqua must implement measures to improve green customer satisfaction as a means of enhancing green customer loyalty. ... The findings indicated that no significant positive relationship exists in the green product quality-loyalty link. For Bonaqua, this finding implies that customers who highly value green product quality may not necessarily decide to repurchase the brand’s products in the future. ... This research suggests that Bonaqua’s green corporate image is insufficient ensuring repeat brand patronage ... The findings imply that Bonaqua’s green customer satisfaction can be boosted via green trust. ... The potential lack of customer loyalty toward Bonaqua may be attributed to perceptions of greenwashing (Go Green Hong Kong, 2014)."
4. Vijayraghavan, Kala; Chakravarty, Chaitali (2007-07-30). "Upset with bottlers, Coke to bring Bonaqua". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2025-04-06. Retrieved 2025-04-06.
  The article notes: "Hindustan Coca-Cola Bottling (HCCB), the bottling unit of Coca-Cola in India, is launching Bonaqua, a water brand from Coke’s global stable. Bonaqua in all probability will end up competing with Coke’s existing water brand Kinley. ... Coke has two international bottled waters: Dasani, which is sold predominantly in North and South America, and Bonaqua, available mainly in Europe. Dasani was first introduced in 1999. Bonaqua has been around since the late 1980s."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bonaqua to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at each of these and although you found better sources than most, I still only barely see these as significant. I'm coming around to Geschichte's view that the article may be a keeper but it needs to be about the brand in all of the markets, not just Hong Kong. (The suggestion to make this BonAqua Hong Kong doesn't seem viable to me.) Also, this brand appears in the List of Coca-Cola brands article, but not in the The Coca-Cola Company article itself. Some of the brands are named in that article and BonAqua might fit into one of its sections. So I'm leaning toward draftify as the article is critically incomplete. I fear that if we leave it as a stub that it'll come back to AfD in this same condition. Lamona (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article should cover the brand in all markets, not just Hong Kong, since there is extensive coverage about the brand's being sold in many places outside Hong Kong. Cunard (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Coca-Cola brands Not sufficient coverage for stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in the hope that we can find some more sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Sinhagad (1693)

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

None of the three cited sources provide significant coverage to the topic, this was a minor attack that had no lasting impact nor is it given the weight required for a standalone article in the history books, fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Lebedeva

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability. On-line searches yielded nothing. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, Armenia, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Armenia at the 2002 Winter Olympics: Both this and the corresponding Russian article are devoid of any type of secondary coverage. As such, the subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She was actually quite famous. But my brief search didn't come with anything. (Understandably, cause 20 years have passed.)
I wouldn't delete articles like this. Cause you would need to find Russian and Armenian print papers from 97–02, they haven't been scanned for Google Books.
I've looked her up, she currently coaches very small kids in Moscow. Her students are so small, none of them are in the news, sadly. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bordrline notable Olympic sportsman. Independent coverage does exist, but difficult to find. --Altenmann >talk 16:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notable how? Finishing in 27th place out of 27 skaters? Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's why she dropped competitive sport, sad. Still borderline WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV. --Altenmann >talk 17:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is that "significant coverage" in the room with us now? Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I can see, Altenmann found her entry on Sport-strana.ru, a Russian online sports encyclopedia. There's a detailed article.
The Sport Strana encyclopedia may not seem well-designed (it is stuck somewhere in the 2000s), but it is being used in 590 Russian Wikipedia articles ([13]). So it is definitely a serious, reliable website. And their article about Lebedeva is actually well-written and looks good. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She represented Armenia at the Olympics and the Europeans, basically being an "acting" Armenian champion. (I have no idea if actual Armenian national championships were held at that time. So I can't prove she was actually a champion and thus passes WP:NSKATE.)
And she wasn't someone unknown even in Russia. She placed 6th at the Russian championships in the 1997/98 season and thus most probably qualified for the Russian national squad. Cause she represented Russia at the Golden Spin and Skate Israel early in the next season. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All that said, I think she passes WP:NSKATE as a de facto Armenian champion. (At least de facto.)
@Altenmann:. I was afraid to vote because of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1176#User:Bgsu98 mass-nominating articles for deletion and violating WP:BEFORE. Where the emphasis of the discussion I started was shifted to attacking me. Since then, I've been avoiding AfD and decided to come here only because I know Lebedeva was famous enough. As were many other Russian skaters whose article were deleted during the past year. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A similar mop-up was earlier for footballers and ... pornstars. There was even a joke inforgaphics where, like, 55% of Wikipedia articles were pornstars, 25% pokemon :-). It is sad that now it seems to be 80% of Wikipedia edits is from wikignomes (that's what I see in my watchlist) rather than content creators. But there is a reasonable position that if a person is indeed notable to general public, not just to wikipedia lawyers, the bio will be recteated anyway ... or not. My personal approach is if I see some name mentioned an several wp articles, I write up a brief bio, such as Shulamit Volkov or Niyameddin Musayev or Bronislava Kerbelytė, to name a few of my articles no one cares about. --Altenmann >talk 18:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course Bgsu98 comes down as a 25-pound hammer on all these articles, but in his defense I may say that a HUGE number of nanostubs were created by dumping various databases into wp, without real loving care of the subjects. I remember this happened to locations in Antarctica (it took lots of work to merge/redirect them into larger features) ; we are still struggling with GNIS dumps of locations which do not exist anywhere but in GNIS; I remember one guy ctearted several dozens 200-character articles on railway stations in several minutes, I guess in a rat race to be the one to create the 1,000,000th Wikipedia article. And so on. So I see nothing wrong in backfiring with massive AfD nominations. --Altenmann >talk 18:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But these figure skater articles were not like that. Many were well-developed. There were several prominent editors who created such articles a few years ago. Maybe if these people were still active they would defend their creations.
This is a lesson why you need to write articles for contemporary skaters now and not wait 20 years. Cause in 20 years most of the online sources won't exist anymore, and it will be impossible to prove the people were famous once. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have added sources to this article. This is the English-language Wikipedia, so sources in languages other than English must include 1) the title translated into English, and b) the language of the source. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Must include". — That's not a requirement. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Armenia at the 2002 Winter Olympics. Not much coverage to keep as stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medical narcissism

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

Reason Vasaras kruīzi Tallink (talk) 19:03, 24 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 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Original book was reviewed by New England Journal of Medicine: [14]. I don't know if this is enough for notability. Other than this, I mostly just find blogs and other book reviews. Maybe the article could be based on the book, rather than the concept? WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this concept could potentially be covered (or, as now, rather "mentioned") on Wikipedia but I oppose it having its own article. Thus, I believe that this article should at some point be deleted, or converted into a redirect to the page where medical narcissism is discussed. For example, if we can find an article discussing the integrity of medicine or something of the sort, this information can be included there as an example of a phenomenon which the author claims (I hope on good grounds) is a feature of clinical mal-practice. To me, it does at leas sound plausible, although that is not a measure of verifiability, of course. Vasaras kruīzi Tallink (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would something like Medical ethics be a good target? Conyo14 (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion! I will try to take some time to consider the article's suitability for the purpose, and in case it is the best one, I will try to locate where in the article a section for "medical narcissism" could be included. Hopefully we can have this resolved so that we can continue on the path of making Wikipedia an encyclopedia of high quality. BlockArranger (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per the policy on neologisms. Just because someone coined a word doesn't mean it deserves an article. I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning in the Medical ethics article, but I don't know it's not, so that doesn't sound like a terrible idea as long as this article doesn't stay. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For information to everyone this concerns, I want to announce that I have merged the content into the article about Medical error, specifically the section concerning Disclosing mistakes => to patients, under Mitigation. To me, this seems like a reasonable place to merge it into, as medical errors are specifically addressed in the author Banja's book, and medical narcissism is defined as having to do with disclosure specifically to patients. I believe that Medical ethics would not be as suitable as it discusses the abstract, ethical, philosophical aspects which are important to consider, but not as centered on the practical matters such as what is discussed in the Medical error article. Hopefully, this will work out as a solution which is also accepted by the broader community maintaining the ME article. BlockArranger (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If spotted last week, this AFD discussion should have been a procedural close as Keep as there is no deletion rationale nor nomination. But people have commented and so I'm going to give this discussion more time. I favor ATD when appropriate but we have more than one suggested target article for a possible Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would like to explain that when I originally suggested that this article should be done something about, such as merger into some other article, I may have missed some crucial step. Anyway, I have meant to make it clear that the article in question is not much more than a short description of what a certain not very notable neologism means. I have suggested its incorporation into Medical error as per above and in other comments in this discussion. BlockArranger (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medical error#To patients seems like a fine target too. BlockArranger has already merged anything viable from this article. So a redirect would be my !vote. Conyo14 (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we have never ever published original content, and if you didn't know that then it's your fault. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and move to Medical Errors and Medical Narcissism, which is a notable topic under WP:NBOOK. The book has reviews in the NEJM, JAMA, Health Communication, and Journal of Nursing Administration, among others. The book is notable even if the neologism isn't, but redirecting the neologism to the book page is an appropriate AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism based on one source is not notable. Should be used by other sources before making stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: C'mon folks, we've got a couple of viable ATDs, so this isn't going delete unless the delete !voters can explain why those ATDs are inadequate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Norachit Sinhaseni

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable, and I don't see evidence that this one passes WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. The coverage is brief and routine coverage of him in the context of his job, not WP:SIGCOV of him. Please ping if I missed any qualifying sources in my search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Thailand. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is quite incomplete. After his ambassadorial posts, he was Permanent Secretary for Foreign Affairs, then spokesman of the 2014 junta's Constitution Drafting Committee, and later a representative of Thailand to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. He also had an executive position in Centara and some other companies. But there's not much in-depth coverage. There's an interview in The Nation covering him as an individual, but it's an interview.[15] There's this Khaosod profile piece,[16] but it only lists his positions in résumé format. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marv (Sin City)

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

Minor comic book character. While there is a reception, it is just a summary of several listicles, in which the character takes at best a 24th place. Other than that, this is just a plot summary and a list of appearances in various media. This fails WP:GNG and at best could be redirected to the List of Sin City characters _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Sin City characters: the info currently in reception can be merged to the list, condensed to about a sentence, probably, and the rest of the article is just plot summary. Did a quick google and didn't find anything obvious -- it seems unlikely by assumption he needs his own article separate from Sin City. I don't know of a lot of reviews that only talk about one character except for the most famous works. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is not a "minor comic book character"!!!!! I've expanded the reception. Please take less Sin City-related articles to AfD or do thorough BEFORES, Piotrus. Marv clearly meets WP:GNG. Thank you.-Mushy Yank. 19:40, 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 03:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 10:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Sin City characters - Mushy Yank has done good work, but in my opinion all of these are passing mentions of Marv, except for maybe the Dan Rempala book, so it still doesn't meet GNG. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tons of other sources exist; might add more if I have time. (and thank you but I beg to differ, most of the sources I added are not only "passing mentions"). -Mushy Yank. 16:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added a couple of things again. No time to do more but sources exist (a lot). -Mushy Yank. 17:01, 25 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!} 02:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per all, as WP:ATD. I see WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and listicles that don't support a separate article, but could improve the character list. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look harder, please. To quote the essay you are citing: "Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." -Mushy Yank. 18:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed AGAIN since its AfD nomination. --Mushy Yank. 18:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Mushy Yank. I fail to see how these are all passing mentions. Madeleine (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mushy Yank and Madeleine961. Main character in a prominent property, with reasonable coverage. BD2412 T 19:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Need to determine an outcome as arguments are split between Keep and Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Loren Howard

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

Blatant WP:ADMASQ for a non-notable former college football player's asset-based lending, botox and supplement businesses. Behold the sourcing:

Stats pages (WP:PRIMARYSOURCE): [17], [18], [19].
Profiles/bios from his schools' websites or student pubs (WP:RSSM): [20], [21], [22], [23], [24].
His own companies' websites: [25], [26], [27].
Sponsored/paid-for profiles: [28], [29].
Primary source Q&A WP:INTERVIEWS (and most of these have the stink of paid-for content: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35].
A WP:TRIVIALMENTION: [36].
... and his LinkedIn page

We have basically one piece of independent WP:SIGCOV, about his decision to end his football career after six seasons of eligibility, and that's nowhere close to a WP:GNG pass. I've left all the spam in here for now so AfD participants can see what this page was intended for. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, American football, and Arizona. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but maybe cut most of the promo content. He's notable as a football player, see SIGCOV from e.g. Arizona Republic (2 3 4 5), Chicago Tribune, AP, and Big Ten Freshman of the Year probably passes WP:NCOLLATH as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets GNG. Although many sources in the article are garbage, there are plenty of sources available to meet GNG. The article needs a lot of cleanup but AfD is not for cleanup. Rlendog (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Humphreys

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable rugby player. Coverage from reliable sources is clearly lacking, and there isn't any evidence that subject warrants a standalone article. Fails WP:NATHLETE. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current first grade player in one of the top tier rugby league competitions (NRL) at the start of his career. I found some coverage. [37], [38], [39]. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Rugby league. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In the interest of completeness, I wanted to point out that the first nomination from 2009 was for an article on a different Jamie Humphreys (an author) than the rugby league footballer that is the current subject. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Nahar

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

Orignal creator of this article was blocked for WP:COI and WP:PROMO. This persons fails WP:GNG as well as WP:AUTHOR, due to lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Also most of the sources on this article are not about him, hence checked carefully. It may be created for undisclosed payments because this article creator also created articles on his multiple books which are also nothing more than promotion. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR TheSlumPanda (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adhunik Bharat Ke Brahmarshi Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya

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

Orignal creator of this article was blocked for WP:COI and WP:PROMO. This article is also nothing more than a promotion. This book is not significantly covered by secondary sources in depth.Clearly fails WP:NBOOK. TheSlumPanda (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. TheSlumPanda (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vasundhara Raje Aur Viksit Rajasthan

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

Orignal creator of this article was blocked for WP:COI and WP:PROMO. This article is also nothing more than a promotion. This book is not significantly covered by secondary sources in depth. Only source i found is the Dainik bhaskar, which is actually not about the book and it is about the launch of book (as it is about chief minister so it got some attention). Clearly fails WP:NBOOK. TheSlumPanda (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Păduraru

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

Does not have enough coverage to meet WP:NSPORT requirements. Darkm777 (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Darkm777 (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another in a series of poor mass Olympic medalist AFDs by this user. One needs to actually check relevant archives before deleting; in this case, there appears to be many mentions in newspaper archives that should be checked. Remember that Paduraru is an Olympic medalist and world championship medalist in the offline era and coverage is virtually guaranteed to exist for this star Romanian sportswoman. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Olympics, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Oprea

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

Does not have enough coverage to meet WP:NSPORT requirements. All the articles I found on her where just a mention of her name. Darkm777 (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Darkm777 (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please stop wasting our time with these Olympic medalist deletion discussions. Coverage exists; see the extensive Romanian article, and Oprea is extremely accomplished, having numerous world championship medals, being a world champion and Olympic medalist, which satisfies WP:NOLY. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looking at the corresponding Romanian article, [[40]] appears to be WP:SIGCOV, and while [[41]] and [[42]] are less impressive I think there is enough here for a WP:SPORTSBASIC pass. Let'srun (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Olympics, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mykhailo Tkachuk

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

I'm a bit unsure of this one, as he played mainly in the 1990s and had a rather long career, but in all four related languages, I could only find this, which is hardly WP:SIGCOV. I could find literally nothing else—hardly even a mention of his existence. The article has also been a stub for going on 10 years now. I figured that it would be worth putting it up for discussion here, as it doesn't appear as though this article is improvable without seeking out physical archives for information—and even then it's not guaranteed. I'm curious if anyone else can find anything on this player. Anwegmann (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete The uk-wiki article is much more detailed, but it seems that this person does not satisfy the notability threshold for sportsmen, as well as it fails WP:SIGCOV. --Altenmann >talk 01:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Moldova, Russia, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural impact of Katy Perry

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

After a PROD was removed for unclear reasons, I'm taking this to AFD. It's filled with fancruft and comes off as a WP:POVFORK with claims that are unsourced and/or promotional in nature. I therefore suspect whoever started the page up wanted to have a puff piece focused on praising Katy Perry. Either way, the "Legacy" section of her main bio already is sufficient when talking about impact on music. There's no need for a bloated subpage. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Popular culture. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Erzurum (1821)

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

Article subject already discussed in the ottoman Iranian war article. Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Could easily blank and redirect this instead of AFD.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Iran, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open iT

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The Computerworld article only contains a brief mention that some other company used Open iT's products, and the other two sources were authored by a company employee. Can't find anything else besides trivial mentions and another article published by a senior employee. Also this source which is apparently a vanity award publication after looking through online reviews. The generic name makes it hard to search, though. Deproded in 2006. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Norway. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP an company's software WP:NSOFT. As-written the article reads like a brochure for the company's products. Most available sources don't appear to be independent of the company either.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Narendra Chaudhary (soldier)

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

Does not meet criteria for notability, reliability, or reliable sources. The single English language source is of extremely poor quality. Audrey Woolf (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and India. Audrey Woolf (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Astronet

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability/importance still seems low. No useful references to support most content on this page. Redirecting wouldn't be a bad idea. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Astronomy, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a cursory check for references turned up a number of papers on the subject. It appears sufficiently notable, and I'm not clear that WP:BEFORE was followed. Praemonitus (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Cheese

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

non notable meme, fails wp:gng. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 00:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Know your Meme isn't a RS and I don't find any other sourcing for this "thing". Some articles about actual cheese. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources of this non-notable offshoot of other "virtual influencers"

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, really leaning towards A7 speedy due to no semblance of importance given in the article except the fact it's "like other memes". /over.throws/^✎ 02:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.270.5233.68

[1] Cook, James S. (Fall 2013). Lecture Notes for Advanced Calculus (PDF). Liberty University - Department of Mathematics. Retrieved April 2, 2025.

[2] LOOMIS, LYNN H.; STERNBERG, SHLOMO (1989). Advanced Calculus (PDF) (Revised ed.). Jones and Bartlett. Retrieved April 2, 2025.

[3] ttps://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.270.5233.68

[1]

[2]

[1]