Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

9 February 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

< February 08	February 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

2025 American aviation crisis

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

Recency bias made article and does not meet the the Wikipedia Notability guideline RobertOwens01 (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, and United States of America. RobertOwens01 (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Do people not realize that these accidents are just a string of coincidences that the media has made seem connected? Stuff like this is relatively common, crashes will obviously get more attention following a major accident. E_F⁵ 04:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Te Koutu

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

Mentions of school are either passing or trivial, with most coverage dedicated to the now disgraced former principal. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Scouts

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

Highly confusing. It's not a disambiguation page (there's already Boy Scout (disambiguation), with a 10-year old discussion about merging the two, Talk:Boy_Scouts#Merge_of_Boy_Scouts_(disambiguation)). It seems a set-index article, as it's just a list. Boy scouts redirects here but Boy scout doesn't. fgnievinski (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scouting-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for now. This information could be moved elsewhere, but I am unclear where, but until that is done it should be kept. Bduke (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't see the need for both of these dab/set pages. Reywas92^Talk 06:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that "Boy Scouts" is a term that is used across the world. It is not restricted to the USA. Bduke (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Farhad Azizii

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

Fails notability, it was once deleted here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farhad Azizi (athlete). now recreated again under a slightly different name to trick wikipedia. I'm going to repeat what I wrote before. most refs are fake and searching his name in English gives you almost nothing. Sports2021 (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moeed Pirzada

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP1E. He was one of the journalists who were targeted by the Pakistani government in 2023 under some controversial charges. Most of the sources that discuss those arrests don't talk about Pirzada in any significant depth, which is why most of his career is sourced to primary sources in this article. Since this article has been repeatedly created by sock/meatpuppets, I would recommend salting it as well. Badbluebus (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Television, and Pakistan. Badbluebus (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pirzada appears to be a notable TV host, and his legal troubles go beyond WP:BLP1E. He was arrested in 2015; news coverage of that arrest described him as a "renowned TV anchorperson". A former Indian Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju called him an "eminent Pakistani journalist" while responding to a speech of Pirzada's. His departure from Pakistan seems to have been widely covered. [1] [2] [3]. There are a number of other news stories on Google News about him. And these are just the English language results -- no doubt there is more coverage in Urdu. Jfire (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
exactly 101.53.234.144 (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Not just the Pakistani government, but also the Pakistani military establishment has targeted him. He remains a prominent journalist in Pakistan, with millions of people relying on his political analytical abilities to foresee what is likely to happen in the near future in Pakistan as well as around the globe. This is evident from his YouTube channel, which garners significant viewership from various countries, not just Pakistan. His page may require some, or even a lot of, improvements, but these improvements can only happen if the page is allowed to exist and remain open for public contributions. Deleting his page would be unfair. Aqsa Qambrani (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)— Aqsa Qambrani (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Not just the Pakistani government, but also the Pakistani military establishment has targeted him. He remains a prominent journalist in Pakistan, with millions of people relying on his political analytical abilities to foresee what is likely to happen in the near future in Pakistan as well as around the globe. This is evident from his YouTube channel, which garners significant viewership from various countries, not just Pakistan. His page may require some, or even a lot of, improvements, but these improvements can only happen if the page is allowed to exist and remain open for public contributions. Deleting his page would be unfair Aqsa Qambrani (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)— Duplicate !vote: Aqsa Qambrani (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

thank you so much Isaqibrana (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Moeed Pirzada is a prominent politics investigative journalist from Pakistan and has been in the media industry as senior anchor & columnist for over 16 years. He already had wikipedia page for years on wikipedia but recently the page was deleted after years being on wikipedia, deleted specially after he became a victim of Pakistan Regime 2022 with several other Pakistani journalists. The previous wikipedia page deletion shows how current administration does not want him to be a public figure, I believe even the previous deletion of his page was against freedom of information. He is being targeted by current administration in Pakistan. After being banned from entering Pakistan and banned on mainstream media, he choose to spread his voice using social media and currently have over 3 million people follow him with over 30 million active views. He also conducted interview with former British Prime Minister. QuantumThread (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)— QuantumThread (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete and salt. There are shenanigans going on with this page (see the creator of Draft:Moeed Pirzada removing the G4 deletion template and copy-paste-moving the draft page's content into this page simultaneously). But even without the shenanigans, this subject does not clear WP:GNG or WP:NBIO for a standalone page. Almost all of these sources are to Pirzada's own writings or to other non-independent sources. The couple of sources that are both independent and reliable are not WP:SIGCOV of Pirzada. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
millions of people are relying on his political analytical abilities to foresee what is likely to happen in the near future in Pakistan as well as around the globe Isaqibrana (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Pirzada qualifies to be on Wikipedia and definitely meets the criteria for WP:GNG or WP:NBIO.He is a credible and well-informed journalist in Pakistan. While I acknowledge that there is room for improvement, this can be achieved by allowing open contributions and ensuring that citations come from independent sources rather than his own blog. for your reference please have a look https://www.economy.pk/top-10-news-anchor-in-pakistan/. Pirzada is one of the top journalists of Pakistan. Aqsa Qambrani (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Pirzada qualifies to be on Wikipedia and definitely meets the criteria for WP:GNG or WP:NBIO.He is a credible and well-informed journalist in Pakistan. While I acknowledge that there is room for improvement, this can be achieved by allowing open contributions and ensuring that citations come from independent sources rather than his own blog. for your reference please have a look https://www.economy.pk/top-10-news-anchor-in-pakistan/. Pirzada is one of the top journalists of Pakistan 101.53.234.144 (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC) — 101.53.234.144 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Mr Moeed Pirzada is very well known and respected world renowned Political Analyst, Journalist,TV anchor / Host, and an author. His name should not be deleted from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neunad (talk • contribs) 05:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC) — Neunad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: as per Jfire (talk). He's done much better explanation above. Behappyyar (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per Dclemens1971. Nothing has changed since previous AfD. They have also published a lot of spam via globalvillagespace.com on Wikipedia. Too much waste of volunteers time. Gheus (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have very divided opinion here right now and much of it is just opinion. Can we get a source review?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no divide once the sock votes above are struck. This was previously decided at AfD and I do not see anything since that one which shows how this qualifies for a page. Based on the SOCK activity and bludgeoning, I would also recommend salting. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the earth - This article has been a target of a meatpuppetry operation (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/PhoebeAfrin), and regardless of the obvious meatpuppets crawling out of the woodwork I see mostly sources with a connexion to him, and what doesn't have a connexion is too sparse for this article or an unverified YT video. There's jack here to work with. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am entirely ignoring the sock/meat campaign to keep this article, but there remain two valid keeps that haven't been rebutted directly - tempting as it is to delete an article purely because it is the subject of an off-wiki campaign, that isn't based in policy either.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lindy Fralin

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

WP:NCORP fail. Graywalls (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, Products, and Virginia. Graywalls (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Society for the Defence of Palestinian Nation

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

Organization is not notable. Page is also poorly translated and extremely antisemitic, peddling the Zionist Occupied Government conspiracy theory as fact, among other things Pyramids09 (talk) 02:09, 18 January 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 January 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Iran, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, this organization is likely notable, I've been able to find significant coverage, a quick search can lead to [4] and [5] in addition, it appears the organization is rather significant in Iranian politics, since both Hossein Amirabdollahian and Zahra Mostafavi Khomeini seem to have had affiliation with the organization. There's probably sources that aren't in English that could be used as well. The main issue of the article is how it is written, this article certainly does have brazen WP:NPOV issues, but that is something that can and should be fixed. I think maybe we could Draftify the article until these issues are fixed if necessary. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing stance to Strong Keep. -Samoht27 (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The propaganda of the Iranian medieval regime is well-known and does not need promotion on Wikipedia. If spreading chaos in the Middle East is considered defending the Palestinian cause, then indeed, the Palestinians might need it! Valorthal77 (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly a notable organization, from a quick search seems to be a fairly major organization in Iran, organizing mass protests, international conferences, running a publishing house, etc.. The WP:IDONTLIKEIT argumentation in this AfD debate don't hold up. --Soman (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Right now, participants' opinion is divided. If the only problem is NPOV, that can be corrected through editing. The question is whether or not this subject is notable as demonstrated by sources so both those editors seeking to Keep and those advocating Deletion should be focusing on that aspect and not on whether the current content is appropriate for the project.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an undoubtedly notable Iranian gov-backed org. However, I would reiterate that certain phrasings in the article might not meet WP:NPOV and should be fixed. That doesn't necessitate deletion though. Eelipe (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC) non-XC editor vote struck -- asilvering (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per above. Has no place on Wikipedia. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The entire premise of the AfD is extremely problematic. "The fact a subject is not neutrally presented is not a valid reason for deletion. The solution for lack of neutrality is to fix the article, not delete it." - WP:ITSNOTNEUTRAL. Eelipe (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After reviewing all the sources, it's clear they do not support notability under either WP:GNG. The WP:SIGCOV of the subject is in unreliable sources. AgusTates (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC) non-XC editor vote struck -- asilvering (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article required significant improvements, including proper sourcing, neutral tone, and the removal of unsupported claims, all of which I have addressed. The subject is notable, and the article now meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and reliability. Taha Danesh (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the article is partially biased. AgusTates (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid reason for deletion. See WP:ITSNOTNEUTRAL. Eelipe (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sourcing still needs, at minimum, to be clarified. All of the sources are in Persian, but none of the citations identify the sources being used, except for one citation to the society's own website. I just deleted a Waze map showing the location of the society's office from the external links, per WP:ELNO #15. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there is already an entry Society for the Defense of Palestine, and it is neither neutral, it is very promotional and not at all transparent, maintains a lot of false information and not supported by reliable sources. Promise provocative actions. --190.219.102.29 (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC) non-XC editor vote struck -- asilvering (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the Society for the Defense of Palestine is clearly a different organization, so that has no relevance for this discussion. The IP user 190.219... has no other edits apart from 3 other Middle East-related AfD votes within a short time-span. --Soman (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, IPs can't participate in consensus forming discussions covered by WP:ARBECR. They are only permitted to post edit requests on article talk pages. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are not a soapbox, or social media platform, or propaganda ministry for the government of Iran, which is coterminous with its media. The only countries with worse media than India are North Korea, Iran, and Russia. At least India'a media can be used to verify the existence of a village. Iranian media and government are one entity; they publish incorrect information on gas stations and nursing homes as if they're villages. Continuing to allow countries who would ban us, from pushing us around, is detrimental to the Wikimedia Foundation. This article is not just biased, but harmful to us. Bearian (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered that bias on Wikipedia can be fixed? This isn't a valid argument against. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "keep" folks don't seem to be having the same argument the "delete" folks are having. If you're going to !vote keep, please show what makes the org notable - what sources? Furthermore, if an article is extremely biased, we can delete it, as a WP:TNT argument. Let's get this back on track and look at the sources, please. Reminder that this falls under WP:PIA and only extended-confirmed editors may take part in this discussion. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Natività della Vergine, Thiene

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

No sources to establish notability per: WP:N. See talk page for more info. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Italy. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A before search brought up possible Italian scholarly articles on this church. No comment on notability yet though. SportingFlyer T·C 21:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I looked into both Google news and books. All of the references focus on either the castle that is nearby, or to the feast/commemoration of the Nativity of the Virgin. This is not an independent parish, but rather a chapel of the castle and an oratory, which is a unique type of house of worship for laypersons; I've visited a few in Italy and elsewhere. FWIW, I'm Episcopalian. Bearian (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surviving 15th-century buildings of any kind are clearly notable. Most countries would heritage list them and they'd automatically pass WP:GEOFEAT. Sadly, Italy isn't very good at listing buildings, but the principle still stands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. Djflem (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete Given a lack of sources, I'm not going to presume an old building is notable simply because it's old; if nobody cares enough to write about it, then it isn't notable. It does actually matter if the Italians don't care about their own buildings, but I would presume that what with the interest in Renaissance art, there ought to be English language sources if there were anything notable about it. And I'm having trouble finding sources beyond the municipal site, possibly because non-Italian sources don't use an Italian name. I wouldn't necessarily oppose a merge, but at the moment I'd really expect to see some sourcing that makes an explicit claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have no reliable sources for this whatsoever, including for the claim that it was built in 1470. (fwiw, it sure doesn't look 15th century to me, but I'm not an Italianist.) -- asilvering (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, as soon as I say that, I find the magic word that brings up a source: [6]. This gives us a date of 1476 and a hint of some recent research, so hold that thought. -- asilvering (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm still on "delete", unless someone can pony up some sources. I found a bachelor's thesis ([7]) that says the architect was Giovanni da Porto, if that helps anyone. -- asilvering (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss the info from asilvering w/r/t architect if that helps on IDing sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of boats in The Adventures of Tintin

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

So, there's some interesting stuff here in the form of well written and referenced text on "The maritime world in The Adventures of Tintin", but this is wrapped in fancrufty and poorly referenced list that fails WP:NLIST (and while the list appears to have plenty of footnotes, many are just unreferenced notes or commentary). As a list, I think his has no reason to exist, but the content could probably be merged somewhere, or maybe split (or perhaps we could just delete the list part of this article and rename it?). It's a weird case, I've very rarely seen some good content bundled with bad one in such a way... If this is somehow kept, obviously, this is not a list of boats, but ships (or ships and boats?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, Lists, and France. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For what it's worth, the corresponding article in French is a GA. The topic is covered in a dedicated book! Horeau, Y. (1999). Tintin, Haddock et les bateaux. (Among other existing sources) Meets WP:NL. Topic addressed as a set.The rest of the issues are normal issues that can be handled through normal editing. Most of the ships in Tintin are notable, btw. Even see GNews -Mushy Yank. 19:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 22:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NLIST. Azuredivay (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mushy Yank. BilletsMauves^€500 10:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NLIST. I'm only seeing trivial mentions and plot details. The relevant plot stuff is already mentioned at the main series article, which would be an acceptable redirect target, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of ships in The Adventures of Tintin as more appropriate title (I assume this might come from French "bateaux" as in the title of Horeu's book meaning both ships and boats). As already pointed out by Mushy Yank there are secondary sources with enough coverage as to fullfill WP:LISTN. Everything else are problems which can be solved through normal editing and are therefore no grounds for deletion. If someone wants to transform this into a fully prose article, or even expand the scope to The sea in The Adventures of Tintin, I have no objections. But these again would be editorial decisions which are no grounds for deleting what we have now. Daranios (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in the hopes of finding a more definitive consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 02:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Szego

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

This is a case of WP:BLP1E, the subject is only notable for their sacking from The Age. The rest of the sourcing that I've found, both in the article and through searches, is either not independent or not in-depth. I've considered the possibility that they might pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC and I don't see that either is the case. TarnishedPath^talk 11:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Journalism, Sexuality and gender, Israel, Palestine, and Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 11:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eelipe (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per WP:BLP1E the 'subjects notable for one event' policy must meet each of three criteria listed for the subject to be unsuitable for a page. They are: reliable sources only cover one event; the individual is otherwise low profile; and the individual's role in the event was not significant. I suggest Szego's career as an author and journalist elevates her above “low-profile individual”; and her role in the event clearly was not “not significant”. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A reading of WP:LOWPROFILE would suggest that they are indeed a low profile individual. Being a author or a journalist alone does not make someone not low-profile. In fact if they did have a high profile as consequence of those activities they would almost certainly pass WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:NAUTHOR (the same policy), which they appear not to. TarnishedPath^talk 23:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't agree with the contention that she is WP:BLP1E nor do I agree with the issue around the other sources. At the very least there is:

https://www.wilddingopress.com.au/julie-szego

https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2015/04/24/32926/nsw-premiers-literary-awards-2015-shortlists-announced/

https://www.theage.com.au/by/julie-szego-hvf9s

https://thejewishindependent.com.au/podcast-ashley-talks-to-journalist-julie-szego

https://www.theguardian.com/profile/julie-szego

MaskedSinger (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Dingo Press, sells her book (see https://www.wilddingopress.com.au/shop/p/9780987381149). It's unsurprising that a book seller would have a profile page for an author that they sell the books of. It's not independent. It would also be a stretch to call two paragraphs significant coverage.
bookpublishing.com.au only mentions her in passing. It does not have significant coverage of her. Notably there is no claim that she won that award so I don't see a pass with WP:NAUTHOR.
The Age link you provide is her employee profile page, detailing articles that she wrote as a journalist for The Age. Firstly that's not independent coverage of her as an individual and secondly that doesn't go towards showing a pass of WP:NJOURNALIST. The Age were her employer, so it's unsurprising that they'd have a profile page on her.
thejewishindependent is a podcast in which she is interviewed. This is not independent from Szego and more importantly counts as a primary source. This does not contribute towards establishing Szego's notability. Those issues aside it appears to be dominated by her sacking from The Age, going towards my argument of BLP1E.
The Guardian link is of the same nature as The Age link. Again not independent as they are/were her employer and again it's it's unsurprising that they'd have a profile page on her which details the stories that she's written for them.

None of the sources you have provided above contribute to Szego's passing our general notability guidelines. In order to establish notability we would need multiple reliable secondary sources which are independent from Szego and which cover her in-depth. If WP:BLP1E wasn't a thing then she should pass on the coverage of her sacking alone, however WP:BLP1E is a thing and therefore she doesn't meet our general notability guidelines. TarnishedPath^talk 12:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per TarnishedPath nomination and extensive explanation. Easy call. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, above discussion and online research that rendered 2 books (no reviews), a sacking, and a couple articles about George Szego. Nothing significant for a career spanning decades. Maineartists (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen editors cite multiple reviews in the past as sufficient reason for a keep (not that I'm accusing you of doing that here as you've obviously stated there are no reviews). I'm not sure that multiple book reviews, by itself, is a WP:NAUTHOR pass. I presume the editors are basing their keep vote based on criterion 3 which states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series), but to me it would appear that when they are doing so that they are disregarding the first sentence of that criterion. TarnishedPath^talk 00:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found hundreds of search results for her in The Wikipedia Library, but the overwhelming majority of them were her bylines on articles she has written, and yes, there was SIGCOV about her, but it was not independent, because her byline was on those articles as well. Just because she was fired from her job doesn't automatically bestow notability on her, because that news cycle about her getting sacked has already come and gone. Maybe in the future, she might pass GNG for a BLP, but right now she does not, she's a BLP1E. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tony Lupton#Personal life per ATD and CHEAP. The reasoning of the delete-supporters is sound; the conclusion differs. gidonb (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the suggested redirect. TarnishedPath^talk 04:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having found multiple sources (8 so far, just in a google search, and no, they are not publications she has worked for, they're in books and journal articles) where she is quoted or her stances affirmed or questioned, I believe that she does meet WP:NAUTHOR #1, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". The article as it stands does not reflect this, but can be improved. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Isaidnoway's comment above. If you're going to claim that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" on the basis of them writing two books then you're going to need to provide some sourcing that makes that clear. TarnishedPath^talk 01:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least 10 sources, other than "The Age". Her views are being widely discussed. SRamzy (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What sources? I have demonstrated above that none of the sources brought to the AFD demonstrate notability. TarnishedPath^talk 01:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per multiple sources presented during the AfD that demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Keep" clearly has the numbers, but none of these keep !votes have appropriate evidence backing them up. If there are independent sources about her and her views, let's see them, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Macon City Council

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

I don't think a city of <200k needs a separate page for its city council, especially given that the only member listed who has a Wikipedia page is Erick Erickson, who is obviously notable for other things. I don't see the argument for this passing GNG. And that's not even mentioning the current state of the page, which cites no sources and hasn't been updated in over a decade--it still lists Erickson as a member of the city council even though he left office in 2011. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Toys 3D

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

Rationale: Non-notable per WP:GNG for a shareware re-release of a game that lacks an article. I think it seems to be shareware that does pop up in odd sources and cover discs, but lacks substantial coverage and review content to justify an article about it.

Source analysis: Relies mostly on primary sources [8], user-generated blogs [9] or game databases [10][11][12]. A PC Gamer article ([13]) seems promising, but the content reveals the writer has not played the game, relying on the site's description to describe it, and is expressing bemusement at the archaic method of distribution of its rerelease. Best coverage seems to be in a Czech magazine website of unknown reliability [14].

Other searches: Trivial mention on Games Industry as part of a publisher background [15]. Internet Archive search found one catalogue listing describing the game ([16]) and one Russian review ([17]) although the latter doesn't really describe or express much of an opinion of the game other than calling it a funny parody of Wolfenstein. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a merge/redirect into Wolfenstein_3D#Legacy. Btw, Tibo Software's website is still online. IgelRM (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps redirect to WinG, the library it uses. 2604:3D09:8C77:A500:595:B86:B208:2639 (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrocles (half-brother of Socrates)

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

Not notable. He has precisely one mention in the complete works of Plato. All the information is extrapolated from what we know of Socrates. Remsense ‥ 论 00:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (if possible?) to Phaenarete, which already mentions him. No need to merge, as there is no useful information here, and one of the sources is not reliable (geni_family_tree), and the other only has a sentence saying that Socrates had a half-brother Patrocles. The disambig page Patrocles could say "Patrocles, son of Phaenarete and half-brother of the philosopher Socrates". (If any other editors are aware of more information and sources about this Patrocles that could be added to improve this article, I'd be happy to reconsider.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having reconsidered, as per my reply to Uncle G below, I am striking my Redirect !vote. Nails 2002 is clearly SIGCOV, and with the other, shorter sources and explanation of his roles, adds up to at least WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Many decent 21st century sources (e.g. Miller's and Platter's Plato's Apology of Socrates: A Commentary (UOP, 2012, ISBN 9780806186054)), as opposed to the family tree WWW site that is used in the article, point to Nails 2002, pp. 218–219, Patrocles of Alopece, son of Chaeredemus harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNails2002 (help) as a good recent authority. It has the original Greek name, the citations to classical sources (including Euthydemus), and a lengthy discussion of Patrocles's possible career on the Board of Ten archons (that followed the fall of the Thirty Tyrants) after age 30. Uncle G (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nails, Debra (2002). "Patrocles of Alopece, son of Chaeredemus". The People of Plato: A Prosopography of Plato and Other Socratics. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing. pp. 218–219. ISBN 9781603840279.

Uncle G, I'd be happy to reconsider, but I have no access to Nails' book myself (Google Books preview does not show those pages, nor the Works cited and consulted (which might provide other sources too)). Other sources I have found have at most a sentence or two about Patrocles, though admittedly more than is in this article. Xenophon: Ethical Principles and Historical Enquiry p286-287 says "Socrates' half-brother Patrocles was King Archon of the board of ten oligarchs who replaced the Thirty after their downfall"; Socrates in Love p 170 says Patrocles "may have had political ambitions; he is named as holding an official position in the Athenian treasury in the late fifth century". The Bloomsbury Companion to Socrates names Patrocles as one of seven who fled into exile as a result of the scandals and failed oligarchic coup of 415. That does sound like he was notable. I do not feel competent to add that info to the article, though! RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above, unless additional detail sufficient to prove notability is forthcoming: the best way to prove that would be to add some substantial, reliably cited mentions. If you do this, feel free to ping me to reconsider my !vote. Brief and passing mentions (even in good sources, as those discussed above seem to be) are not in themselves sufficient to do this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added those sources to the article. I hope that someone with access to Nails 2002 will expand the article further. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If no one else has critiques, I'm happy to keep the article given these improvements, thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 01:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavishya Malika Puran

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nom on behalf of @Kharavela Deva: whose nomination was: "The article's neutrality is disputed. Less coverage, non-reliable sources,no verifibility and also AI-generated content. It may broke WP:V,WP:N,WP:D" I am neutral Star Mississippi 00:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and India. Star Mississippi 00:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]