Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

14 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 13	February 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Maria Strong (attorney)

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

Fails GNG. She assumed some positions at the United States Copyright Office, but none of them was extraordinary enough to confer her notability. Even if some positions she held are notable enough to have a stand-alone page, that doesn't automatically make her notable.

[1] Blog source.
[2] Routine announcement, which most people who get appointed to assume relevant federal roles usually get.
[3] Mostly Strong talking about her own work, not an independent source. Badbluebus (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and United States of America. Badbluebus (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the valid arguments made by @TJRC
Nayyn (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She didn't just assume "some positions" at the Copyright Office; she was acting Register of Copyrights, the top position, the head of the entire Copyright Office, with responsibility for all U.S. policy relating to copyright law. I know that "register" sounds like a purely ministerial title, like a county register, but it is the equivalent to a position like the head of the US Patent and Trademark Office. It's just that the USPTO head's title has changed from the mundane U.S. Commissioner of Patents to the more ornate Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, while the Copyright Office has stuck to its original title. Frankly, each of the registers in the List of registers of copyrights merits an article.

No objection to improving the sourcing.

Disclosure: I'm the editor who initially wrote the article. Frankly, I think it was better -- in content, sourcing and clarity of notability -- in its original form. I agree it should be cleaned up; but not deleted. TJRC (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy are you using to back up the notability of this topic? NPOL? If yes then they didn’t merit NPOL#1, the sources itself are neither sufficient to merit NPOL#2. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 04:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Copyright Office is very clearly a national agency; and the head of the United States Copyright Office is very clearly someone "who [has] held ... national office" by virtue of holding the office heading that agency. TJRC (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Copyright Office is a part of the Library Congress. This is what NPOL#1 says: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. Which part of NPOL here does she pass? She doesn’t pass NPOL#2 due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the basis for your confusion. Are you saying that the US Copyright Office is not a federal agency? TJRC (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holders of every federal agency is not notable; that’s not what NPOL is about. "Not every appointee (or elected position) automatically passes the bar of WP:BLP/WP:N. I would also note the language in NPOL: "are presumed to be notable" but it doesn't relieve them of the obligation in WP:GNG to have significant coverage in reliable sources. If the position was that important, it would be trivial to find SIGCOV in WP:RS, but that isn't the case. "Presumption" isn't a guarantee, it just means that it is likely you will find sources." Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per TJRC. For the record, most active Wikipedians are 2 or 3 degrees of separation from the subject via the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors member Kat Walsh, who's a mutual connection on LinkedIn and Copyright Counsel at Creative Commons. Bearian (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't necessarily understand the views above about WP:GNG. Serving non significant or perhaps public political or literary offices doesn't meets WP:NPOL. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be the head of a government corporation, doesn't seem to pass political notability. They’re a business person in the employ of the government, not a politician that's elected. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 12:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TJRC. She was also vice-president of the International Intellectual Property Alliance, and was quoted in that role in newspaper articles about laws relating to piracy of software, CDs, etc. She has also published book chapters and journal articles on copyright. I have added some refs and info to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to qualify for WP:NPOL and also doesn't match WP:GNG. Pollia (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Acting or not, there is a single Register of Copyrights for the whole of the United States, and their legal responsibility is substantial. While the case would be stronger if this was a presidentially appointed position, it is still a nonfunctionary national office, the equivalent of an agency head. BD2412 T 22:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sources that meets the GNG are yet to be brought in for this discussion. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- As previously noted, the subject passes WP:NPOL, a WP:SNG. TJRC (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I don’t see anything anywhere. Being the head of a government agency doesn’t make one an automatic pass for NPOL. I am only seeing this rationale when it comes to agencies owned by the West. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional input is needed to determine consensus. Please provide further discussion on the article's notability and reliability of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Afro 📢Talk! 07:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Triskell

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

Fails WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG. The only citation likely refers to this directory entry or something similar. dePRODed in 2016 with the edit summary I edited links and references. I do not see the point to say that it is an unremarkable software. It is used by companies such as Orange, La Banque Postale, Agbar, ect. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Software, and Spain. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yilmaz Bektaş

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO because all sources are gossip that centered on his celebrity wife who was a Miss World Contestant. Twice, the article was moved to draft space for incubation and to pass through AFC review but was moved directly back to the main space. Majority of the sources are from non WP:RS and they are all written in same format of "Who is ...", "Net Worth", "Age", "Early life", "Education", "Wife". Patre23 (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cyprus, Turkey, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It appears that his only claim to significance is his previous marriage to Ruffa Gutierrez, but notability isn't inherited. The sourcing, unfortunately, reflects this as pointed out by the nominator. I don't think a redirect would be appropriate given that there's nothing significant about Bektaş in Gutierrez's article. Yue💌 19:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. [[4]],[[5]] and [[6]] are enough to establish notability.
102.91.102.2 (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Few reliable sources are available. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 10:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. By the way, "Few reliable sources are available" is not a strong argument for a Keep. Which sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject appears notable due to his business, diplomatic roles, and UN affiliations, but the article lacks proper sourcing and structure. A rewrite with reliable citations is needed to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. -- Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The independent coverage is essentially gossip and tabloid journalism, this person is not independently notable. His position as a businessman and diplomat does not make him notable. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chachro Raid

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

Article uses sources from only one side of the conflict, not using any neutral sources, making the article biased due to its lack of other perspectives. Eltabar243 ^Talk! 13:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Pakistan, India, and Sindh. – Eltabar243 ^Talk!
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eltabar243 can you point to areas where this supposed lack of diversity of sources has led to a lack of neutrality? On my quick reading of the article it's not biased.

Note that Ikram Sehgal is cited, and he's from Pakistan. John Gill is American. D you have particular non-Indian sources that can be added?

Based on what I see, this is a Keep but I'll reconsider if good reasons are provided. Oblivy (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LeadDesk

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

The article on LeadDesk may warrant deletion if it does not provide sufficient evidence of notability under Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. Without significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, the article does not meet the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Loewstisch (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Technology, Computing, Internet, Software, Europe, and Finland. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 12:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete: I'm unable to ascertain the quality of finnish sources, but a cursory search shows that there is no WP:NCORP in english or french (while i was at it) sources. the fact this was PRODed before tells me this is probably not a very notable company, despite their impressive list of costumers.

themoon@talk:~$ 08:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal (podcast)

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

I couldn't find any independent sources about this podcast. I'd expect a WSJ-affiliated podcast to have sigcov but it doesn't look like it does. Unless someone else has better luck, maybe it should be a redirect to The Wall Street Journal? BuySomeApples (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Radio, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know much about this podcast, aside from it being a competitor to NYT's The Daily. (i think?) In the Hollywood Reporter, I found this, and also this about another WSJ podcast called "With Great Power" which is "part of The Journal". It also appears to be an "Honoree" of a 2024 Webby Award. Limmidy (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review sources brought to this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm not sure what is happening but we have even fewer participants in AFD discussions than normal. It makes determining a consensus a challenge when there aren't many editors offering arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Furniture Confederation

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

Declined prod. 1 of the 2 sources added is a non independent source from Furniture News. Most of the 10 google news hits for this org are from the non independent Furniture News. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete, I never like deleting, but I can't find anyone independent writing about this organisation, only this organisation doing its job: lobbying/raising awareness of issues. In effect, no sourcing, nothing to summarise, and if the reader wants to know about it, a google search and the organisation's own website will serve them better than our article. Elemimele (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Vik

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

Non notable film maker. No notable productions. Lots of awards but none are major. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Wonderland is straight PR with no by-line. Forbes plethora of top howevermany of whatever are not significant. LA Weekly is straight PR. Same with Flaunt. There is a big push to promote her but Wikipedia is not a venue for that. Spam built by a cast of SPAs, UPE and socks. Telling is the representation in the opening sentence. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Czech Republic, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What about the awards here? Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from above "Lots of awards but none are major." There are a LOT of festivals, award ceremonies, award farms, whatevers that hand out or sell a lot of awards, at times making up categories so they can give everyone an award. Listing awards is not enough, they has to be something significant about them. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree that this is an attempt at WP:PROMO but I don’t agree with the impression that winning awards is insignificant. I have no opinion on the notability of this topic in question and would not !vote. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't agree with an argument that hasn't been presented. That's useful. Good for you. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Duffbeerforme, no need to be snarky to an editor who took the time to consider your proposal. We need to encourage participation here at AFD, of all kinds.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Passes WP:GNG with coverage from Deadline (by Zac Ntim et. al.) and Vogue (Czech), with the most significant coverage in the LA Weekly and the Wonderland Magazine references. I acknowledge these latter sources have a entertainment publication-style tone but haven't seen any conversation on talk pages that they don't count towards notability, especially LA Weekly. Nnev66 (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note - that LA Weekly bit is from a known spamming PR/SEO flack. It's a 'guest post' that's not marked as paid placement. Also note that the international "branded" franchises of reliable sources like Vogue or Forbes are often pretty sketchy. There's a lot of unearned media in play in this article as it is. Sam Kuru (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source review would be helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Brandon Field

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

Non notable actor. Lots of small parts but no significant roles in notable productions. (Significance of parts is puffed up in the article, "significant" part in Lotus Eaters (film)? No) Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lots of interviews where he talks about himself but not much else. Closest is the GQ piece on the Winehouse hologram tour where he is mentioned a few times but that's not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, England, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He plays young Daniel Molloy in interview with the vampire which is a significant role within the show and will likely be expanded upon as the series continues. Interview with the vampire doesn't have that many episodes a season but he's had a starring role in two of them so far. Including the episode that was tipped for EMMY nomination

https://collider.com/interview-with-the-vampire-season-2-episode-5-luke-brandon-field/

https://www.thewrap.com/interview-with-the-vampire-daniel-molloy-luke-brandon-field-interview/ Thewandaverse (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thewandaverse. While his role is supporting, it's clearly a significant role that has garnered media coverage. I would say the same for some of his other recent projects. Starklinson (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here to agree with Thewandaverse. The character of Daniel Molloy will become more significant in the next seasons. Field is also often sent out for promotional purposes for interviews. He appeared at the Saturn Awards show as a representative of the show (Interview With the Vampire) on February 2, 2025. Sierraalphagolf (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source review would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Non notable. Father is a producer and does not star in significant roles. Most articles are not from reliable sources and the winehouse hologram piece is because of his father. Most roles are shorts. Just Isn't notable enough to be on wikipedia. 2600:1700:B2D:83A0:E1B2:18A4:5BD7:CA27 (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of documents released by the Department of Government Efficiency

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

this article is based on X posts by Department of Government Efficiency and is thus inherently unreliable soibangla (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Every source is a reliable source. At the time of AfD start, the article had 14 sources, five of which are sources from X, specifically DOGE primary sources. However, the article had nine secondary reliable sources, including The New York Times, TIME Magazine, and Business Insider. Nomination reason was "article is based on X posts", which has now been proven false as there is indeed RS for this. Primary sources on X do not justify deletion, especially U.S. government sources. Posts on X by the National Weather Service / press released by the National Weather Service are often cited on weather articles. X posts can also be cited on Wikipedia, including in GA articles (ex. 2023 Pasadena–Deer Park tornado passed GAN with a X post source). No valid reason for deletion. I am not opposed to a potential merge into the main DOGE article only if consensus falls in the direction of "delete" or "merge". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia Girls

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

After a BEFORE on author Lee Welles, the book series (Gaia Girls), and the individual books in the series (Enter the Earth and Way of Water), I do not think this series meets NBOOK. I have searched for reviews through Google, Google Scholar, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, Kirkus Reviews, JSTOR, and ProQuest. I found one review on Kirkus (cited in the article) and potentially a review in Earth Action Network [7], but I don't have access to the article. Welles has passing mention in Digital Citizenship in Twenty-First-Century Young Adult Literature and an article in PW, but the first doesn't mention the books and neither provide SIGCOV. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are some OK news sources [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] but they are all very local which I am not sure is great for this kind of thing, especially since they call her "local author" and stuff. They're also not much in the way of commentary/reviews. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Found a couple of reviews: This is from Children's Bookwatch, but it's a bit short. The article from EAN mentioned by Significa should be accessible here and is a bit longer. There's also a review in Refrigerated & Frozen Foods Retailer, magazine of some sort, (here) for some reason, but I have no clue whether it's legitimate or not given that it seems a bit unusual. I wouldn't count the Kirkus Review though, since it's from their Indie reviews program. Regardless, I think there's barely enough coverage here, combined with the news sources above, to meet NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I have to echo the weak keep. I found two reviews searching using my old college's database. One was what I believe to be the Faces (online community) and the other was from the Earth Action Network. I don't have access anymore, so if anyone with access to EBSCO could check, that would be great. I also found that it won a minor award. It doesn't appear to be a vanity award - it's sponsored by Idaho State University for one. It just isn't a very major award. I'm undecided if it could count towards notability or not - at the very least it's not enough to warrant a keep on that alone. There are a few outlets that have reported lists of winners (like Outdoor Magazine), so it might count towards notability. It just won't be a very strong source. I also concur on Kirkus Indie not being a usable source - it's a pay to play deal so they're not discerning in the slightest when it comes to their indie reviews. I honestly don't have a high opinion of their non-paid reviews either - DGG was very vocal about them not having the greatest editorial oversight or practices, so I try not to use them in general. (Rest in Peace, DGG.)

All in all, not enough for a slam dunk keep but enough for maybe a weak keep. The series doesn't look to have really managed to gain widespread traction, which is a shame because the books look lovely, but it's how it goes sometimes. I won't argue if the ultimate decision is to delete. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ReaderofthePack: The Earth Action Network should be accessible via TWL link I posted above. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The review from Faces is from a 16-year-old, so I wouldn't count it either. Should also be accessible via TWL here: https://eds-p-ebscohost-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=41508692-60cb-4fe8-a215-6c8a083cc9c9%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=31802420&db=f6h ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting given the Weak Keeps.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BR Battle of Britain class 34073 249 Squadron

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

This individual preserved steam locomotive failed WP:GNG. I was unable to find reliable independent sources with significant coverage. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lonesome Suzie

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

Poorly referenced article about a song; fails WP:GNG. My WP:BEFORE yielded nothing except passing mentions like [14] (that's one of the better ones - half a sentence...). If nobody can find anything else, maybe per WP:ATD-R, redirect this to the album it appears in, Music from Big Pink? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Canada. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and discuss in that article, if needed. There does not seem to be significant information from reliable secondary sources available on specifically this song. Z. Patterson (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a lot of the material is from album reviews (albeit from 2 different albums by two different groups) but there is enough material from books to meet GNG. If not kept, sourced material needs to be merged to the two albums the song is on. Rlendog (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There also used to be a review of the song by Nick DeRiso at https://somethingelsereviews.com/2013/08/22/across-the-great-divide-the-band-lonesome-suzie-from-music-from-big-pink-1968/ but that link doesn't seem to work anymore, unless someone can rescue it using Wayback or something similar. Rlendog (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a song by The Band that was covered by another very notable band. Meets the general requirements for notability, as sources show. WP:HEY -Mushy Yank. 09:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 09:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jay City, Indiana

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

According to the county history, a town which was platted but which never took off. About all else I can find out about it was that there was once a Brethren church here, but it's long gone. Mangoe (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as there are few, if any, reliable sources that specifically talk about this topic. Z. Patterson (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Mangoe said in the nomination, there not being any sources is not true. Uncle G (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kuhrt

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

This article has problems with WP:CRIMINAL and WP:BLP1E. Known exclusively in the context of Allen Stanford. There is no criminal notability for this man. Not opposed to redirecting there if a mention is added, since he is mentioned in RS in connection. Nothing focuses on this guy in depth. Every single source except one is a press release, and the one remaining has only brief mentions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Finance, and United States of America. Almost all of these sources we cannot use on BLPs so we would have to nuke it to be compliant with BLP. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Stanford Financial Group, or perhaps mention in Allen Stanford article as a co-perpetrator. The current article is a psudo-biography and should be included in the article about the crime, not exist as a separate article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Stanford trial has been considered one of the largest financial fraud cases ever tried in federal court. Therefore, this is not a case of common criminality.

James M. Davis and Laura Pendergest-Holt were also co-defendants of Stanford and were sentenced resp. to 5 and 3 years in prison. Even their criminal notoriety depends only on the Stanford case. Both have a separate page and this fact has never been questioned.

Kuhrt, compared to Davis and Pendergest-Holt, had a more serious responsibility and was sentenced for that to 20 years in prison. In my opinion, if Davis and Pendergest-Holt deserve a separate page I believe that a fortiori Kuhrt's case also deserves one.

Moreover, in my opinion, if we add to Stanford's page (which is already very detailed) the cases of all the other co-defendants we overburden it.

Meanwhile, many news sources have been added on Kuhrt’s page reporting on his case with details about what transpired during his trial. Mediascriptor (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has been considered by who? No source says that. The sourcing is still not about Muhrt it’s about Stanford. Judging this page on its own merits we have no reason to have it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

« The Stanford trial was one of the largest financial fraud cases ever tried in federal court.^[1] »

This sentence (and relative source-CNBC) has been picked up from Judge David Hittner page.

Regarding the added sources, they are also about Kuhr’t actually. They report what the public prosecutor and a witness said about Kuhrt at the trial. Mediascriptor (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They do not contain sigcov about him. Public prosecutor statements are not secondary sources they are primary. That the trial is big does not make every obscure person involved notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Public Prosecutor's and witnesses' statements, as well as some details about Kuhrt's responsabilities, do not emerge only from a press release by the prosecution office, the FBI or the government but even from many journalistic sources, which are secondary sources. A good part of the journalistic sources that talk about Stanford also talk about his accomplice Kuhrt.

Stanford, before committing a 7 billion scam, was an obscure figure. The extreme gravity of the scam made him notorious. The same is true for his accomplices, especially Kuhrt, who after Stanford received the most severe sentence (20 years).

For the rest, I repeat my question: why should this argument apply only to Kuhrt and not also to Davis and Perdergest-Holt, who had less serious responsibilities? Mediascriptor (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The responsibilities do not matter, what matters is the quality of the sourcing. There is nothing to indicate he passes NCRIMINAL. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurants Canada

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

Searching under new name and former name"Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association" yielded very little in google news. A lot of globalnewswire hits which is a PR site. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Organizations, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Vaage

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an actor and filmmaker, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for actors or filmmakers. The attempted notability claim here is an ensemble (not solo) win at the Canadian Comedy Awards, which would be fine if the article were properly sourced but is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG. But the article is referenced almost entirely to primary sources (e.g. directory entries, film credits sourced to the self-published catalogues of film festivals that screened them rather than notability-building coverage about them, etc.), alongside a couple of news articles that briefly namecheck Vaage's existence without being about him in any non-trivial sense, none of which is support for notability.
There's also a likely conflict of interest here, as the article was created by a WP:SPA named "Skitsandplays".
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with at least 2 significant roles in notable productions (That's So Weird! and Y llegaron de noche). If the first is judged much more important than the latter, the page could be redirected to its cast section. Coverage to verify the first and expand includes https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/that-s-so-weird-parody-draws-the-tweens/article_82bed3d3-617d-5f6e-8b9e-7ee1b92d2314.html (on the page); https://www.insidehalton.com/things-to-do/thats-so-weirds-aj-vaage-does-improv-battle-in-oakville/article_c8858f5f-cac8-5eb7-bc21-89ee2975b42b.html (based on an interview) Coverage for verification of the second includes: https://www.chicmagazine.com.mx/personajes/y-llegaron-de-noche-actores-y-personajes-en-la-serie, https://oem.com.mx/elsoldemexico/gossip/eugenio-derbez-hace-reir-en-dos-idiomas-con-y-llegaron-de-noche-13133549 etc. -Mushy Yank. 01:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cohn, Scott (2019-02-20). "Victims of that other Ponzi scheme—Allen Stanford's—say they have been short-changed". CNBC. Retrieved 2023-06-21.

[1] Cohn, Scott (2019-02-20). "Victims of that other Ponzi scheme—Allen Stanford's—say they have been short-changed". CNBC. Retrieved 2023-06-21.

[1]