Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 23

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Leib Ostrow

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

Not sufficient on WP:GNG, WP:PRODUCER. Royiswariii Talk! 15:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and United States of America. Royiswariii Talk! 15:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Michigan. Royiswariii Talk! 16:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Very weak delete I was able to find this Forbes article and this Los Angeles Times article, but other than that doesn't really meet WP:GNG. The article is also POV in nature. TNM101 (chat) 16:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete as BLP without citations. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Valley2city ^‽ 19:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

2024 FC Zebra Ladies Iwate season

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

Contested PROD but no reason provided. My initial concern was No indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. This source mentions the team Zebra Ladies Iwate and confirms that it plays in division 2 of a regional league. This places the team in the 5th tier of Japanese women's football, which, in my view, is way too low to warrant a separate article (even in men's football in England, we only go down as far as the 4th tier in our season coverage here). To get an idea for the level of play here, please consider that the attendance of one of the league matches was only 30 spectators! This is way below the level that should be covered in a global encyclopaedia. By comparison, even matches in the seventh tier of England attract bigger attendances than this and nobody would argue that those seasons need their own articles. This article is the closest to WP:SIGCOV from those available but it barely covers FC Zebra Ladies Iwate and most of the coverage is about the two players being transferred. I think it's interesting that these Hong Kong footballers would join this random 5th tier Japanese team but creating an entire season article for it seems over the top.

I have considered WP:ATD but the team doesn't have an article and, in fact, even the league season doesn't have an article! To go even further, the actual league itself as a whole doesn't have an article. Creating an article on an individual team season before the team itself or even the league seems to be putting the cart before the horse. My proposal is we delete this article on a season that clearly doesn't warrant an article but I have no opposition to someone creating an article on the league and, perhaps, individual league seasons if they can provide appropriate independent sources. At a stretch, FC Zebra Ladies Iwate might warrant its own article but there would need to be plenty of good sources for that. I can't think of a scenario where this 2024 season for this 5th tier club would ever be notable as we are not a football almanac. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete - This article took WP:BACKWARD to the next level. Even jawiki has no articles about them, nothing worth saving. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 14:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete—Per all above. This is a truly terrible article that clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I appreciate the extensive reasoning and attention to WP:BEFORE. Eelipe (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to List of Melrose Place episodes. Valley2city ^‽ 19:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Seasons of Melrose Place

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

This page used to contain summaries for every season of this series, but those have since been removed, presumably because they were duplicates of the summary sections of each individual season. As a result, the page now is redundant, albeit with less information, to List of Melrose Place episodes. DeemDeem52 (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DeemDeem52 (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete largely redundant. Orientls (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. The content of this article has been copied to other articles, for instance in these edits. If this article is deleted, the list of contributors (revision history) is also deleted. Dugnad (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Melrose Place episodes – the page does need to remain in some form because content does appear to have been copied (though this was not correctly documented at the talk pages), but a redirect to a related page with actual content is better than this. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect as suggested. I thought the user contributions will not be deleted if the redirect is used. Bearian (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This looks like the result is to redirect, but no specific target page has been identified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Content has been moved to Melrose Place season 1, Melrose Place season 2, Melrose Place season 3, Melrose Place season 4, Melrose Place season 5, Melrose Place season 6 and Melrose Place season 7. It would be weird to redirect this article to List of Melrose Place episodes, in my opinion. I suggest using a template instead, probably {{Copied}}. Dugnad (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to List of Melrose Place episodes as suggested, serves nothing extra to a reader. – Meena • 17:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Musos Awards

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

Non-notable award. No significant non-routine coverage in reliable sources. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Awards. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
The awards ceremony is making a comeback this year with reliable notable press surrounding the event and notable celebrities in attendance Jpruit2 (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The awards ceremony is making a comeback this year with reliable notable press surrounding the event and notable celebrities in attendance. Jpruit2 (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this! The award is gaining significance with a notable passed linked to Soccer Six, both of which are making notable returns this year Jpruit2 (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment - from what I see online, such as this news story from 2013, these awards have not been awarded every year. There's not been a lot of coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:CRYSTAL. Looking into the past, I still see little coverage. I might look forward, but Wikipedia doesn't. Bearian (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Bearian non notable award fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Abode Solicitors Ltd

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

A search for sources yielded 1 google news hit. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and England. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. The heady claims are not sourced. This is a small law firm: I once worked at a firm of which I was one of four lawyers and a bunch of staff people. This is run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The PROD makes this article unqualified for "soft" deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Shucayb Dad Mohamed

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST. All the sources are unreliable and cannot establish any notability. Ibjaja055 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Somalia. Ibjaja055 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. There is rough consensus, I think, that this incident has enough coverage in reliable sources, in terms of quantity and quality, to be notable enough for an article. Moreover, there is also rough consensus that the coverage is extensive and persistent enough to overcome WP:NOTNEWS and similar concerns. This does not preclude later discussions on the article talk page about whether this incident should be merged into a broader article about Elon Musk's political activities. Sandstein 08:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Elon Musk's arm gesture

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Musk has been in many controversies of similar nature recently, e.g. the whole Alternative für Deutschland situation. I don’t think this one specifically warrants its own article when it’s already covered in both in Elon Musk as well as Nazi salute appropriately. There also doesn’t seem to be a dedicated article on the man’s controversies or even, surprisingly, political views, which would probably be a better starting point. Mystic Cornball (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep this gesture has received enormous attention from traditional media and non-profit organizations. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep it's been the only thing in the news for days, and has caused a rather large social media storm against Twitter/X and Musk himself. It's large enough to warrant its own article, I think. Korkon1 (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep this has received a great deal of media focus and attention from respected news sources such as the BBC. The article could be better, but this incidence of is of political significance and definitely warrants an article. Pax Brittanica (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep, it's received a lot of media focus and definitely warrants its own page. 168.212.64.194 (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
HARD Keep: this event clearly passes WP:GNG. Furthermore, this event will clearly be WP:LASTING and must have its own article. Incalculable sources, academics, diplomats, NGOs have denounced his act. This is the worst dog whistle to ever exist and I am calling a spade, a spade. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 22:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep, international media coverage from respected news sources. Skyerise (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
merge to Second inauguration of Donald Trump This happened within the last week and maybe there will be continuing coverage, but I feel it makes more sense merged into (probably) a general article about the inauguration events. And the article is large mostly because people in WP can't write short, not because every single reaction made to his acting out has to be included. We need to take WP:NOTNEWS more seriously and not write articles on every single Trump or associate acting out. Mangoe (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
@Mangoe: It was until recently included in Views of Elon Musk but removed on the argument that it is not a 'view' - but I question that as it does support views which are outlined in a section of that article. Skyerise (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi, that was me. Please take this to the talkpage discussion as this has nothing to do with this AfD. CNC (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

On further consideration I'm committing to a merge. THis discussion has already lasted longer than the interest in his gesture. Mangoe (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not true. Within the last 24hours: 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

If this event had happened outside of the Trump inauguration it would likely have had the same coverage, because the reason for the coverage was not related to the inauguration or Trump. There are over 50 given sources which talk about the incident exclusively, and it is continuing to be covered by both media and commentators and politicians. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Selective merge to Second inauguration of Donald Trump and to Elon Musk Is WP:NOTNEWS dead? We don't need articles for every single viral controversy involving Elon Musk. There's no evidence that this coverage will be WP:SUSTAINED/WP:LASTING, a core requirement to being considered notable. Short-term high-volume of coverage does not count towards the notability of events. Plenty of things Elon Musk have said/done have gotten significant news coverage (like his proposal to rename this website "Dickipedia") that nobody thinks deserve articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
His proposal to name this website is covered in Views of Elon Musk, which does not currently mention this incident. (Per that talk page, the "salute" was not a view but "a thing that happened"). There is Political activities of Elon Musk, which could arguably contain this. Dflovett (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

NOTNEWS says "In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." and this doesn't meet any of the five criteria it gives fo something not being meritous. You're arguing the opposite of NOTNEWS (maybe we should change the name? It seems to confuse a lot of people who never actually follow the link, they think it means don't cover the news). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge, although the Elon Musk article already has a good section on the gesture, so instead of being merged there it should be merged into the Second inauguration of Donald Trump article. ItsMeKvman (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP — highly significant political incident, which will continue to enact further influence on discourse, evidently sustained (protest display in Germany, excess press coverage, websites suspending X, commentary by world leaders). It will be a highlight of the ongoing Trump administration, as worthy if not more than occurrences such as the Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph, the Dean Scream or the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident. Hauntbug (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
All of these are relevant because of sustained relevance and impact on their respective political campaigns. For example, Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph was created in April 2015, way after the photos were initially published. We don't know whether the arm gesture incident will be still relevant a few weeks or even months from now; if it is and e.g. Musk separates from the Trump administration in the coming weeks due to his continous erratic behaviour with commentators arguing this incident played a role, I don't see an issue with an own article. As it is, I don't see how this would have more long-term impact than e.g. Musk's attempts at political interference in the UK and Germany over the past few weeks. Mystic Cornball (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. This "gesture" has been major news for multiple consecutive days and is not only clearly notable but perhaps the most notable event in American politics in 2025 so far (barring the inauguration) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scuttlebug Jam (talk • contribs) 23:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep, not convinced WP:NOTNEWS applies here (it doesn't purely appear to be original reporting, news reports, who's who, celebrity gossip, diaries, or uptime tracking). Yes, it is recent and has been widely covered in the news, but recent events can certainly be notable and have articles per WP:LASTING and WP:RECENT.Wikipedialuva (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep, important event, has received coverage beyond just news in mainstream sources. The Donald Trump hot mic incident has an article – it is of a similar, WP:LASTING nature. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 23:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep: Important event, has a ton of coverage, also per above replies. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 00:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge/Delete there is no good reason to have a stand alone page for this. Supposedly this is important or lasting yet the article provides no evidence of any importance or lasting impact, just a bunch of reactions. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep or merge to Second inauguration of Donald Trump as a second choice option. Given the sheer volume of coverage and responses this seems notable and likely to remain so, however I am sympathetic to the idea that we could be covering this as a sub-topic of the inauguration and not as a stand alone. We wouldn't currently have a length issue with that, but I worry that at some point we would so its just kicking the can down the road. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Absolutely keep. To say this is notable feels like an understatement. HalfHazard98 (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Anecdotally, it's all I've seen on social media for days. More factually, it's received widespread coverage not only in the US but also internationally (BBC, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, etc). I think the wealthiest man in the world giving the world's most offensive gesture at a presidential rally deserves an article. HalfHazard98 (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge. It's unlikely that this will have lasting notability. If it turns out that sources still regularly mention it in six or twelve months, we can restore the article.
The content could easily be condensed to three or four paragraphs without losing any relevant information. That's how it's done in the German and French Wikipedias.
Some other large Wikipedia editions don't mention the incident at all, e.g. pl:Elon Musk, it:Elon Musk, es:Elon Musk, which may indicate that internationally it's not as notable as some editors believe.
(I guess some Wikipedia users are currently shocked by Musk's gesture and want to express their disdain. I sympathize with such intentions, but that's not what Wikipedia is for.) — Chrisahn (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
I would almost be inclined to agree, but there have been articles made for notable flavor-of-the-month topics that were kept, even though their long-term notability at the time seemed questionable. (Example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Smith assault of Chris Rock at the Oscars). I would simply counter that what I think Wikipedia is for is to be as informative as possible to as many people that need the information as possible. Many people will be looking for the information now when it's most relevant, as well as likely six to twelve months from now. HalfHazard98 (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge: per Hemiauchenia and Chrisahn. charlotte ^👸♥ 01:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete/Merge - Seems unlikely to have any lasting notability. The whole article is based on speculation.KatoKungLee (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep: I agree with many of the other points, but I want to add that right now there are expanding sections in Elon Musk, Views of Elon Musk and Nazi salute all about this incident. If this incident gets its own page, it can cut down on all the inevitable expansions on those articles and give an article of focus for this major world news story that is probably not ending any time soon. My suggestion is that the title should be changed to something like "Elon Musk arm gesture incident" or "Elon Musk gesture or salute incident". I think the above-mentioned "Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident" is an astute corollary to this, as mentioned by HalfHazard98. The article List of -gate scandals and controversies also gives insight to the many other situations like this that have spawned their own articles. Dflovett (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge per WP:TRUMPHATE. We already have too many articles covering the minutia of these clowns. We dont need more. Cover it as a single para in one of the two proposed articles above.--v/r - T P 02:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
While this is a discussion, let’s keep in mind that the topic is a BLP. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge: this event in it's own doesn't pass WP:LASTING, I think it should be preserved and merged (or changed) into a larger article on his alleged fascism. This is one in a series of controversies, not a unique event. Crelb (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge. Even if this has a WP:LASTING effect and doesn't violate WP:NOTNEWS (which I am sceptical of, per Hemiauchenia and others), it's better covered in its wider context as part of a larger article rather than as an isolated event. This would not be notable at all if it weren't for the wider series of statements and actions described in Elon Musk and Views of Elon Musk. If we had an article for every time Musk/Trump/etc did a thing and everyone in the world commented on it, we'd be creating dozens of these articles that are 90% just "Reactions" by volume every week. MCE89 (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep: The act has received a tremendous amount of press coverage and garnered impactful responses from various political agents and groups. QRep2020 (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep (like, HARD Keep) for reasons listed by others above, especially User:HalfHazard98 and User:Dflovett. A VERY notable international historical event, with VERY significant coverage from a plethora of reliable sources. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete There is enough coverage of this nonsense in the main article for Elon Musk. He says his heart goes out to you, touches his heart, throws his heart out towards the crowd. Biased news media try to make it sound like something else happened, for political and economic reasons, does not make it significant enough to have its own article. Dream Focus 03:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Dream Focus reveals their bias by calling it nonsense. One could claim it is recency bias; one could claim that it will be seen as unimportant years from now, but one can't seriously claim that it's nonsense. —Anomalocaris (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
"Nonsense"? That definitely implies a biased view about the topic at hand that would incentivize someone to want to delete this article. Even if you don't think it was a Nazi salute, this moment has immense coverage. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
User Anomalocaris, User Paintspot Infez, please remember WP:GOODFAITH and do not malign User Dream Focus as 'biased' in your hearts. Calling this whole affair 'nonsense' does not reveal User Dream Focus' bias: this affair is complete nonsense, as so much of politics is. It is trivial to find images of countless political figures (Obama, for example), raising their arms with their palms down. It's just one of those orientations that the human forelimb tends to pass through, especially if one spends countless hours speaking to and waving at crowds. Much of the coverage of this event (reliable and otherwise), largely boils down to Godwin's law.

... However, with all of that said, I must ultimately disagree with User Dream Focus about the correct course of action, and register my opinion that we should Keep this article. The fact that this 'Roman salute' business is nonsense (and it is, undoubtedly, nonsense of the silliest kind), does not mean that it is not significant. The massive number of RS already accumulated on the page, and the oodles more that can be found by searching about it on the internet right now, show that tons of people really care about this event (silly though it may be). There's no doubt that we should have a Wikipedia article about it: obviously plenty of Wikipedia editors regard it as sufficiently encyclopedic, and there are so many RS about the event, it's a keeper. (P.S., love the name Anomalocaris) Joe (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
I certainly do assume good faith. But words have meanings. Wikipedia's article Nonsense begins, "Nonsense is a form of communication, via speech, writing, or any other symbolic system, that lacks any coherent meaning. In ordinary usage, nonsense is sometimes synonymous with absurdity or the ridiculous." The article under discussion is written in ordinary English and has coherent meaning. One might argue that it is absurd or ridiculous that Mr. Musk's gesture has received all the attention it has received. But it has received this attention. The original event really happened. The attention really happened. Whatever it is, it isn't nonsense, and anyone who calls it nonsense is exhibiting either bias or a misunderstanding of the difference between nonsense and silliness. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Just want to point out it disingenuous to cite other politicians (particularly those who had no ties whatsoever to the far right or neo-Nazism) and dismiss all this as nonsense (it really was nonsense in the Obama case). I am not referring only to you or to you in particular, it is a common argument I have read. This Italian article explains it well:
"Given that the four politicians [Obama, Clinton, Warren, and Harris] do not appear to have ties to the far right, American or foreign, it is difficult to link them to Nazism due to the decontextualized frames, a ploy usually used by Russian propaganda disinformation against Ukraine. ... None of the incidents cited in this article involve an obvious Nazi salute. The scenes involve greetings to the public, with the left hand, or moments in which American politicians gestured with their hands while speaking at rallies."
In other words, it is harder to use such a defense if one actually has ties to the far-right, and I do not think all this should be dismissed as nonsense on par with other politicians with no ties to the far-right who did not in fact make the Nazi salute. It is also ironic to cite Godwin's law when Godwin himself said it was justified to do so in regards to the 2017 Charlottesville rally and later in 2023 that it was okay to compare Trump to Hitler, and thus perhaps he may also argue it is okay (and not nonsense) to describe Musk's salute a Nazi salute, even though Musk is not a neo-Nazi himself or if he did not really mean it; the fact he has ties to the far-right means it cannot be dismissed as nonsense. In my view, there should be a clear demarcation line between the two. It would be justified to call them nonsense only for the aforementioned examples of politicians with no far-right ties who were just gesticulating too much.

Again, that is not say this was or was not a Nazi salute, but it is a false balance to compare Obama and other politicians (with no far-right ties) to Musk and those who have far-right ties. I am writing to you this because, apart from that, your reasoning and logic in the rest of your comment was spot on for "Keep". :-) I prefer calling it "Fascist" (or "Nazi" when done in the manner Musk did) rather than "Roman" because, even though it may be the common name, "no Roman text describes such a gesture, and the Roman works of art that display salutational gestures bear little resemblance to the modern 'Roman' salute". Most Italian sources were quick to point this out in their article about the controversy. Davide King (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS at its finest. A single gaffe does not automatically deserve a page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Dean scream would beg to differ. As would Covfefe and We begin bombing in five minutes. Dflovett (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

We can also add Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident AlanGiulio (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Key word "automatically". This just happened, and shows little sign of long term significance. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Considering that the incident only happened days ago, how could you possibly know that it doesn't have long-term significance? Cortador (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

How can WP:NOTNEWS at its finest result in a deletion argument? NOTNEWS clearly supports keep (as it does at almost any deletion discussion, if you're using NOTNEWS to argue for deleting a current news item you're using it wrong). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

This. The widespread misunderstanding of WP:NOTNEWS as "news stories can't have articles" has always been one of my biggest pet-peeves with AfD discussions. It's exceedingly rare that NOTNEWS is actually applicable as a reason to !vote delete, but depressingly common to see NOTNEWS invoked in ways that suggests the !voter is inferring its meaning from its shortcut. This is why I'd like to see it renamed. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

NOTNEWS says "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". This event does not qualify for inclusion per [[WP:NEVENT]. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The sentence you're quoting is specifically about routine news stories. Common, recurring, run of the mill, everyday events. The sort of thing you'd see as an "and finally" story. "Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs" and "sports matches, film premieres, press conferences", or a dog biting a man — things that are unexceptional, ordinary, and uninteresting. Nothing in WP:NOTNEWS or WP:ROUTINE suggests that controversies which receive sustained coverage from dozens of reliable, secondary, independent outlets are the type of news stories they're talking about. Most of the examples given at NOTNEWS and ROUTINE seem like the sort of thing you'd expect to see on local news, but we're talking about something that garnered international attention. For the nth time: NOTNEWS does not mean news stories can't have articles. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Celebrity controversies are routine. They make the news for a few weeks, then never again. This is nothing more than that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The same could be said of Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident, which is arguably less important as there's no wider political context to it, only an interpersonal conflict between celebrities. But as AlanGiulio mentioned below, this is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS example as that article is a GA, so its quality and notability have already been thoroughly vetted. Ultimately, notability is determined by sources, and there's no shortage of sources here. Vanilla Wizard 💙 12:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Controversies are not routine by definition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per NOTNEWS. See WP:TDS. Elon Musk arguably has similar amounts of fame as Trump. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. Incident that received significant attention, thus meeting WP:GNG. The entire context only adds to its importance. I cannot see how the claim of WP:NOTNEWS could be relevant here. RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. It's clearly news and widely reported on both domestically and internationally. 1101 (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Total missunderstanding and interpretations of Musk motivation and intention,also "The Anti Defamation League stated that Musk did not make a Nazi salute, but "made an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm"Empiricus (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Seems like your personal opinion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Reminder that the ADL is not a credible source for this sort of thing. That !vote also has nothing to do with Wikipedia deletion policy. Vanilla Wizard 💙 17:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep – Significant coverage by reliable sources. WP:TDS is an essay, and I am interested what the interpretation of WP:NOTNEWS is from those voting to delete on the basis of that policy. WP:NOTNEWS mostly concerns tone and wording, not notability. The only part that discusses notability is point 4, i.e. WP:NOTGOSSIP / WP:NOTDIARY, which recommends against adding trivia. I'd argue, however, that this event is not trivial, as evidenced by its coverage by sources from across the world and across the political spectrum. I can only charitably imagine that the citation of WP:NOTNEWS is an argument against this event "[having] notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest." Yue🌙 08:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Point 2 considers the enduring notability of events, which is my main concern specifically. If you look at the examples brought by other editors of comparable events, all of them are several years old at this point and have shown sustained and tangible impact on culture and/or the subject's respective political careers or campaigning efforts. Whether that's the case here remains to be seen.

If you look at the article so far, it's almost exclusively reactions and social media posts, but zero tangible consequences; contrast that with reactions to Musk's behavior in the past, which e.g. led companies and organizations to step down from the platform altogether. Hence why, so far, I am not convinced this needs its own article instead of being covered appropriately in the articles about himself, his his political activities, or generally the article on the Nazi salute. Mystic Cornball (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
If it remains to be seen why are we at AfD? We are instructed after all not to rush to deletion, but you seem to be saying that you rushed to deletion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

"If you look at the article so far, it's almost exclusively reactions and social media posts, but zero tangible consequences"

This simply isn't true anymore. Neo-Nazis and white supremacists celebrating; politicians in Austria and Germany attempting to ban Musk; a huge wave of subreddits moving to ban links to his social media platform. All of this is currently in the article. This isn't to say it was an intentional Nazi salute, but that the interpretation of it as one is having tangible consequences both online and offline. Dflovett (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. Content is enough to warrant its own article. The main article in Musk will end up WP:TOOLONG. Plus content is thoroughly cited for inclusion. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 08:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Regarding TOOLONG: The content could easily be condensed to three or four paragraphs without losing any relevant information. That's how it's done in the German and French Wikipedias. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Sure, it could be condensed, but the English Wikipedia is generally much more detailed and descriptive than the German and French ones. While it's true that condensing the content wouldn't lose much important information and the German and French sections about the gesture manage to cover the key information, the English Wikipedia normally has higher quality standards than other language versions, containing more reactions, background information, analyses, details, etc., which is why I don't think we should orient on other language versions. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Your claims regarding different Wikipedia editions are highly dubious. Gross simplifications at best. I'd say they're just wrong. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
There may be exceptions, especially regarding articles which cover topics closely associated with German- and French-speaking countries that are not well known or documented in other languages, but in the vast majority of cases, the English Wikipedia is much more comprehensive, detailed, comprehensible, neutral, and better structured, and it's not even close. Of course, that's not surprising considering English is by far the world's most spoken and most distributed language in addition to being the de facto lingua franca in virtually every relevant domain, but the gap is generally quite big, and I say this as a native German speaker with some knowledge in French. Look at the article depth as a rough indicator of a Wikipedia language version's quality, for example. Also, according to editing statistics, the English Wikipedia has more words per article than the German one, even though it already has way more total articles. Maxeto0910 (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Mangoe, Chrisahn and especially Crelb and MCE89. This is a notable event in American politics as I can scarcely think of anything like it happening however it is still running the possibility of being a flash in the pan event in the media coverage of two individuals (Trump & Musk) who end up the news extremely often due to inflammatory and absurd statements or actions. I don't see why it can't be merged and kept the same length in another article like Political activities of Elon Musk rather than being kept as it's own article (reiterating what MCE89 and Crelb stated).AssanEcho (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
I should have state however, that I wont be sad or happy no matter if the article is merged, kept or deleted, so I think my opinion should be viewed with a grain of salt since im much less invested in this article than the many other editors here. AssanEcho (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge or delete - Prime example of recentism --FMSky (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. It is worth noting that several events, which are charged with significant cultural and societal meaning and impact, are covered with specific pages, e.g. Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident, Joe Biden's farewell address, Death and state funeral of Silvio Berlusconi and others. For coherence, if we delete this page, we shall delete also the cited ones. I suggest using Template:Infobox event, which refers to "one-off event", as this event is supposed to be.AlanGiulio (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS:"While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case."

Indeed, Talk:Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident points out it's presence among the Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society.

For consistent, the use of Template:Infobox event suggests that Wikipedia acknowledges and supports the creation of entries for culturally or socially significant one-off events. Furthermore, in terms of Cultural and Societal Impact, the event described in the page has greater cultural and societal significance to the cited examples, warranting independent documentation. The event has the power to legitimize and banalize a gesture with profound political and cultural implications, which is likely to be emulated in the future, providing the need for readers to find an informative page on the topic itself, thus further sustaining the opportunity for this page to keep on existing. AlanGiulio (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

"While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case."

The Chris Rock article is literally a "Good article". HalfHazard98 (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Draftify until long term significance is established or merge. Very obvious violation of WP:NOTNEWS, and I haven’t seen anyone make a convincing argument that this has long term significance and enduring notability at the moment. My personal opinion is that it will have long term significance because of how it affects the Musk-Trump relationship given that this dominated the news cycle when it is supposed to be all about Trump’s inauguration and executive orders, but that’s pure WP:CRYSTAL BALL. At the moment we just don’t know (WP:TOOSOON), and this shouldn’t be an article according to policy. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
@Kowal2701: What I find interesting about all of these "Very obvious violation of WP:NOTNEWS" arguments is that they don't say what part of NOTNEWS has been violated or even how NOTNEWS has been violated. Do you think you could help us with that and specify the exact langage in NOTNEWS and how it is obviously being violated? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: Hi, thanks for the ping, the relevant part is in point 2 Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. I think the fundamental point of disagreement is on whether it is likely to have enduring notability. Unfortunately our policy only addresses whether it has had enduring notability, and combining this with other policies and essays such as WP:RECENTISM, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:CRYSTAL BALL, we’re guided to be quite conservative regarding newsworthy subjects. Admittedly my point on long term significance was more a euphemism for whether I thought it’d have enduring notability. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
And this violates that part how? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
It hasn’t had enduring notability. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Point 2 does not require enduring notability. That would entirely contradict "Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
In the context of all the events the news covers, this is pretty insignificant. Outside of significant events, I assume enduring notability is required. Imo there’d need to be WP:LASTING to justify an article on it, like the other instances given which had a lasting impact on campaigns. Kowal2701 (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
If point 2 does not require enduring notability then there is no violation here... And certainly no obvious one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:LASTING isn't a great reason to delete new articles about recent events, as WP:LASTING itself says: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Vanilla Wizard 💙 13:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge or Keep This page correctly identifies the incident as a controversy instead of a Nazi Salute. It also contains the reactions of outside media and would fit well to be with other controversies of similar caliber such as the Yaroslav Hunka scandal BarakHussan (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
KEEP, A Hitler Salute is extremely offensive to the many people who have died in the holocaust. He did it with such vigor. It is so offensive. Its part of who he is. When describing him, his life, his accolades, it should definitely stay on his Wikipedia page. Afterall it is who he is. 151.205.191.98 (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge per arguments of Hemiauchenia, Chisahn, and MCE89 above. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep - I think the article is well covered in the Elon Musk#Salute at Trump inauguration, however this was a highly notable event which drew a lot of differing views that are further elaborated on in this article for those who wish to know more. Time will tell to what degree it meets WP:LASTING. So far a lot of calls to delete have stated that his (Elon Musk) intention was not to do a nazi salute, however this is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the article should be kept. As for wp:notnews, I believe the high notability of the event trumps that reasoning. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep This incident has received significant and sustained coverage in reliable sources, including the international media. 72.83.62.214 (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

KEEP This article and its context is imporant to document. Articles should not be removed because of theme or who the individual is or there position in society. Erin1973 (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

You don't actually know that, and in any case a whole article on it isn't the only way we have of recording it here. And you aren't responding to the actual criticisms of the article. Mangoe (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

KEEP. Highly notable!--Berig (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep - The mass amount of coverage and discussion this has generated makes it (to my mind) almost certain this will receive sustained coverage. Side note, have people actually read WP:NOTNEWS or are they citing it based off the title alone? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep or Create New Page - I believe that this incident in itself is abundantly qualified as a major event. It not only has received widespread coverage, but also widespread debate, the same as what we are engaging in on this Talk Page. However, it was still initially a subsection that I created of "Accusations of antisemitism". An entire page on antisemitism allegations that have followed Musk could similarly be a solution. However, I think the argument around the Nazi salute or Roman salute is largely about authoritarianism, not antisemitism in this case, so I think preserving the page is still the best solution. PickleG13 (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep Has enough information to justify a stand alone article. Des Vallee (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep Seems significant enough to me.

AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep This has received significant amount of coverage and debate, definitely noteworthy. Finlandestonia (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep Has significant media coverage and I've no doubt it'll be talked about for years. Viatori (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Just like everyone still remembers Laura Ingraham's alleged Nazi-like salute during the 2016 Republican National Convention, right? (I get that she isn't quite as well-known as Musk, but she is still very well known and this happened during one of the most-watched television broadcasts of the year.) Partofthemachine (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Laura Ingraham was and still is a far less significant person than Musk. And even in the coverage of her alleged salute at the time, many left-leaning publications and commentators gave her the benefit of the doubt that she simply made an awkward gesture. For example: Slate, in 2016, published an article saying it wasn't a Nazi salute. This time around, Slate published an article about how it's clear it was a Nazi salute and that neo-Nazis are celebrating. This is not me saying that it was a Nazi salute, but that the discourse around this is very different than it was for Laura Ingraham. Dflovett (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Are we now speculating? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete or maybe merge. This can easily be covered with a few paragraphs on the Musk and inauguration pages, as is done in literally every other language. The arguments made against deletion seem relatively unserious and not based on policy, relying mainly on ipse dixit assertions of notability (see WP:JUSTNOTABLE), claims without evidence that there will be lasting coverage of this controversy, and use of capital letters. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP - As per above. I wish I can explain so much but it's already reliable, it meets general notability guidelines, and it's already independent of the subject. 20chances (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep the controversy is clearly notable with international news coverage, and the content is sufficient to warrant its own article. Flat Out (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: With no prejudice to recreation in the future. We can’t just speculate that this topic would have a lasting effect until it clearly does. Sources are just a bunch of “reaction articles”. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. The controversy is very notable and well-sourced. Dominicmgm (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep for now without prejudice to a merge discussion in a few weeks or months. I would ask those who've invoked WP:NOTNEWS as a delete rationale to remember that WP:RAPID is policy (and that NOTNEWS does not mean "don't cover the news.") And I would ask those who invoked WP:LASTING as a delete rationale reread its last two sentences. I'm also a believer WP:RUSHDELETE (the essay equivalent of WP:RAPID). That said, I also generally agree with its competing essay WP:RUSHCREATE and its policy equivalent WP:DELAY, which I see as not mutually exclusive to RAPID/RUSHDELETE. Sure, I'll agree that it's generally not advisable to start new articles before we have a clearer picture about long-term notability. But "don't rush to create" is merely a suggestion, not a valid reason to delete content that has already been created. Do I feel like this will seem important enough for a standalone page in a few months? Eh, not really. But I can't switch over to delete based on vibes and predictions about its future notability (or future lack thereof). TL;DR: It's too early to be having this discussion, as deletion discussions while events are still hot news items rarely result in consensus to delete. Vanilla Wizard 💙 13:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Regarding the last two sentences of "LASTING", I read them more as applying to situations where it's something of a crapshoot as to whether or not the event will have a lasting impact. With this one, based on pretty much every other such similar event in the past, it's pretty clear that it won't....Sure, it's possible that some unforeseen circumstances might make it have more of a lasting impact, but I think this is rather unlikely. Regarding WP:RAPID, which you link to with the green text at the end, this is more of a recommendation to wait before nominating an article for deletion, not so much for what to do once such a nomination has been made, and it also mentions the options of merging relevant content into other articles and putting longer discussion of the event in a draftspace article (in case more LASTING impact is later established), which myself other people in this discussion have recommended. -Helvetica (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm less opposed to alternatives to deletion like merging or moving to draftspace, but I think the best thing to do when it's too early to know if there will be any lasting, enduring notability is to just wait and find out. This is my approach to recent event AfDs more broadly and not just limited to this page in particular. Any comments one way or the other on what amount of lasting impact this will or will not have in future are too WP:CRYSTAL for me. Seemingly all articles created about recent events are nominated for AfD, but I think it causes less harm to wait until we know if something has lasting importance, and discuss later if it we know that it does not. The alternative to being patient is potentially deleting content that may ultimately end up being significant enough to keep based on the assumption that it won't be, in which case we would have unnecessarily deleted many editors' hard work and discouraged them from contributing to the project in the future. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it really just depends on the situation, I would say. I mean strictly following your approach would mean keeping EVERY article about an event for at least a couple months or so, even if it's quite unlikely to have lasting significance, and personally, I don't see the harm in moving content over to draftspace, from which it can then be brought back out, in the unlikely event that this is called for. And doesn't the argument about waiting until we know kinda cut both ways?...Shouldn't folks also wait to create the articles in the first place, until LASTING has been well established? Aside from this, keeping an article like this active, when WP:LASTING hasn't been established, also seems like it could conflict with WP:BLP by giving WP:UNDUE weight to this one incident with, at best, dubious lasting notability. -Helvetica (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree that it depends on the situation. I've !voted to delete new articles for what I considered to be serious BLP concerns (usually cases of BLP1E), but I don't think there are any obvious or glaring BLP concerns here. As I mentioned in my !vote, I also agree that it's advisable to wait before creating articles and believe that "don't rush to create" and "don't rush to delete" are not mutually exclusive, but "don't rush to create" is not a good enough reason to delete content that already exists. I am a fan of draftifying pages on a case-by-case basis and I'd like to see draftifying suggested more often as an alternative to deletion, but I think this is a case where leaving it for now makes more sense than moving it out of mainspace as there's already a lot of sources in the article, so it could be reasonably argued that it's already received a significant amount of coverage, at least enough to justify keeping it around for now. Vanilla Wizard 💙 05:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Adding on to that, specifically RE "I mean strictly following your approach would mean keeping EVERY article about an event for at least a couple months or so", I disagree. I don't support some sort of blanket moratorium on deleting new articles. There are instances where new articles need to be deleted, as I've mentioned above (BLP vios being one such example), but also the very rare instances where NOTNEWS is actually applicable, and anything else that's actually a valid WP:DELREASON. What I don't support is deleting new articles just for being new, and my approach is rooted in policy. Deleting articles whose lasting impact hasn't been confirmed yet necessarily requires deleting all articles about new subjects. You can only ever know if something had a lasting impact in hindsight. Claiming something will be important in the future is WP:CRYSTAL, no matter how obviously important something might seem. So it's either: delete all articles about recent events just for being recent, or keep them unless there's any legitimate reasons to delete. I choose the latter. You can still invoke WP:LASTING and the like in AfD discussions... as long as you do it after we know if there's lasting significance. If the only reason provided for deleting a page is that it's new and we don't know yet if it's going to be important down the line, then there are no good reasons provided for deletion. Vanilla Wizard 💙 12:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep: This article is well written and has good sources about an event that has gained large amounts of attention. Maybearidan (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep There's a lot of coverage, and no sign of slowing down - by my judgement, this topic will keep generating additional sources worth summarizing for a while yet. That is best dealt with in a separate article. If it dies down quickly, we can still merge later on. But no benefit in hobbling ourselves by packing it into the limits of an already very large parent article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete, this may have gotten coverage, but its is still Newsy and is one incident. At best this warrants one (maybe two) lines in his bio. Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete/Merge, for now....While the incident has indeed received significant media attention, I haven't yet seen evidence that it will have a sigificant enough WP:LASTING impact over the longer term to warrant its own article. I think it's notable enough to be briefly covered in other articles, like the Trump 2nd Inauguration one and/or the main Musk article, but my sense is that a month or two from now, when the newscyle has moved on to whatever other stuff, it won't be widely discussed anymore. Of course this could well change, and if it's still an ongoing issue a couple months from now, with evidence of lasting impact, a full article might well be warranted. but I don't think we're at that point now. -Helvetica (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete Another run of the mill news frenzy, will probably be forgotten about in a couple of weeks.★Trekker (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep The gesture, occurring during Trump's inauguration indoor parade, is part of a historical moment. Documenting such events is crucial for historical accuracy and understanding the cultural and political climate of the time. It provides context to Musk's involvement in politics, specifically his relationship with the Trump administration, and how his actions are seen in that light. The debate around whether this gesture was intentional, accidental, or misinterpreted has led to significant discourse among journalists, scholars, and regular people. This conflict and the subsequent consensus or lack thereof are part of the narrative that Wikipedia often captures to reflect contemporary issues.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
HARD Keep It is an occasion where the event is too important not to have its own article. Doing so would only minimize it. NullReason (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
HARD Keep this event and the controversy around it clearly passes WP:GNG & WP:LASTING. --2A02:3038:266:C2D3:DBE7:A1E9:548B:710 (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete for now per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT, WP:LASTING etc. and revisit if the event ends up having long-term impact. Big Thumpus (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
As an opposing argument. I would say that it should be kept, and deleted if it doesn't meet wp:lasting, rather than the other way around. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep, at least for now. Whether or not this incident turns out to be a tempest in a teapot, it is notable--in fact, brutally so--because for the first time in history, a fascist salute was given at a celebration for a United States president on Inaguration Day. TH1980 (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
First, we don't know that Musk intended any fascist meaning, so under BLP we can't say that it was such. Also, the use of the Roman salute was quite common in the US, right up until WW2, being used, for example, when the Pledge of Allegiance was recited. So such gestures almost certainly have been used at previous inaugurations, in addition of course to Presidents and others waving with their hands high, in a way that might appear to be a Roman salute. -Helvetica (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree with the first part. However there is a reason the Bellamy salute was discontinued, since 1942 it is now considered a Fascist salute, while Bellamy salutes would have been done prior to then, any done after is reasonably considered a Fascist salute. Also, the manner in which a Nazi salute is done, with the rapid movement of the arm from the chest distinguishes it from the Bellamy salute where the hand would be held out during the entire recitement of the pledge of allegiance. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

"Tempest in a teapot" is just a figure of speech for "non-notable". Mangoe (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep it's the literal *world-wide* response that assures the notability of this; politically, the polar opposite of Kniefall von Warschau, but momentary actions can have world historical implications. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. The Nazi salute received a huge amount of attention, and internationally, it received much more coverage than the actual inauguration, making a merge with that article inappropriate. Cortador (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Calling it a Nazi salute is your opinion. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 10:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

"received much more coverage than the actual inauguration" That's false. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment Initially came here with a view to delete (being vary of WP:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article [as it applies to Musk] and of WP:10YEARS), but after reviewing other similar articles on political controversies that have been listed above it appears much more significant than any of them. Perhaps a merge may also be preferable to an existing article (some have been cited above) or to an article which specifically covers this aspect of Musk's politics (Donald Trump and fascism exists). I do not however see much credence in the arguments that this is a nothingburger or that it should be deleted outright. Gotitbro (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Moving to Keep, clearly having an impact beyond Musk: . Gotitbro (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. For reasons already given by numerous other people here. Wjfox2005 (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Strong keep. I agree with the reasons above. However, I may be biased in this judgement. I am Jewish and have very strong feelings about this. (Logged out. See @3OpenEyes for userpage/talk) 74.104.160.163 (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete, unless the title gets changed. While the event may be noteworthy, the current pretence in the article's title that there's any ambiguity at all about the meaning of the gesture makes the article in its current form irredeemably biased via False balance. An article that pretends that there's any ambiguity in the meaning of the gesture is effectively a form of propaganda. TKSnaevarr (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
This issue can be easily fixed through rename discussion. I dont think this is valid reason for deletion. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
+1. The naming of an article should never be a reason for deletion when the content itself is notable. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep for the reasons already given by other editors. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Strong Keep due to Elon Musk being an alleged Neo-Nazi and this topic being important currently due to the recent inauguration of Donald Trump. However I suggest a name change to "Alleged Nazi Salute by Elon Musk". GetitDunne (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. Sure, you could cover the key information about it in a section in Elon's article in 2 or 3 paragraphs, but considering how many reactions, background information, analyses, details, etc. exist about the event, most of which are covered by reliable sources, I think it's justified to have an own article for better context and focus. Trimming said content would lose much important information, and keeping it would bloat the Elon Musk article, so it's best to have an own article. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep or Merge It is unprecedented to see an American official perform such a risky political action evoking the very thing the US and its allies destroyed during WW2. This combined with Trump's expansionist ambitions makes it feel like the tables are turning. It has caused boycotts against Tesla and X.Pancho507 (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Yesterday I saw for the first time people doing it in the open. It's having a cultural impact so I'm impressed to hear from others there's no substantial secondary sources on this topic. Pancho507 (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep: Well written and notable enough to stand on its own. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 20:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep or merge to a relevant article discussing controversies involving or political beliefs of Musk. This is noteworthy enough to deserve its own article, I believe, at least in modern context-- it may fail the rest of recency bias in the future, though we cannot accurately predict the future. For now I believe it deserves to be here. I try to view this from an apolitical perspective despite my biases-- regardless of whether this was or was not some sort of intentional act, it is obviously a big enough event to have several large-scale consequences both intra- and internationally. User:LittleBitMoreKSP (GreebleNeebleGombleWomptus???) 21:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep The subject has generated significant enough coverage, and enough noteworthy reactions, that it couldn't be merged adequately into Elon Musk. – MW_(t•c) 22:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. And rename to Elon Musk Nazi salute controversy. It was overwhelmingly referred to as a Nazi salute in the media. It was not widely referred to as a "straight-arm gesture controversy," which is a kind of language that obfuscates its commonly acknowledged meaning. The article on the salute itself is also titled Nazi salute, its WP:COMMONNAME. --Tataral (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge to Political activities of Elon Musk. The controversy is better understood in the context of Musk's political ascension. ^Falling_Gravity 02:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep or Merge to Political activities of Elon Musk or another article (possibly a rename?) to Elon Musk's shift to the far right. This is certainly not an event that is going to be "overlooked", it's not normal or good to have one of the POTUS's closest people show fascist support in 2025. ItzSwirlz (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Weak keep given the widespread impact it has had, namely the widespread reactions and the subreddit bans on Twitter/X. Second option merge to Political activities of Elon Musk, since discussion on a possible article on Elon Musk's political shift is a matter for another forum. ミラP@Miraclepine 03:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. Merging would merely dilute an unprecedented event among other subjects. NOTNEWS is being improperly invoked here as some sort of ban on pages about recent events. The criterion of notability should suffice here. Plus, the account proposing the deletion was created specifically for this, which is suspicious on its own. Kiwi Rex (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Suspicious? Sounds like you didn't look at the account's talk page. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
The talk page provides an explanation, but it is unusual for an account proposing deletion to have been created specifically for the purpose of proposing deletion. Dflovett (talk) 07:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, you can only propose article deletions with an account, not as an IP. Mystic Cornball (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. Easily passes GNG. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Lean towards keep - It's not entirely clear if this event is notable and would pass WP:GNG, based on the fact that it's unclear if there will be persistent coverage or if this is just recency bias. I'd say it's safe to presume for now given the significant reliable coverage by secondary sources(analysis,evaluation, commentary/interpretation,etc.). For renaming, I think that the current name or some similar variation of "gesture" or "salute" would be fine although I would be hesitant to change the title to "Nazi salute"(alleged or otherwise) for NPOV reasons. Looking at the sourcing of this article, it seems that most of the sources refer to the act itself as a gesture or salute that has been likened to the Nazi salute. Some editors have put forth arguments grounded more in political argument for keeping/renaming this article, but we should avoid that kind of debate here. Originalcola (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete - Upon reflection existing coverage doesn't meet the guidelines for reliable secondary sources needed for WP:GNG being predominately standard news reporting with little or no analysis or evaluation. It does also seem more unlikely that likely that there will be persistent/further coverage of this event. Originalcola (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep - The topic has received significant media coverage from various credible sources both nationally and internationally, including Musk himself addressing it. LinusShapiro (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Notable, sparked discussions from both sides, caused other newsworthy incidents of people being laid off for performing the gesture and it's a topic people will look into afterwards to get updates. avalean (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep, but in case of a merge, impact is what really matters, the most important sections are "Reactions from white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups", "Reaction from Jewish groups and Holocaust survivors" and "Elon Musk's response". --Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep: received worldwide, enduring news coverage - WikiFouf (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep: Checked the article and am pleasantly surprised at how long it is and the fact that is is thoroughly supported with reliable citations. I do think this event will continue to have relevance and will not be a victim of WP:RECENTISM, given Musk is now a prominent political figure and incredibly active on Twitter, where he has already had several reactions to the outrage. The WP:SIGCOV of the event is reason enough for this to have its own page. I believe a merge would drastically cut down on relevant information in the article, especially since several sections can be expanded (like previous accusations of anti semitism). jolielover♥talk 16:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete : WP:NOTNEWS, and will likely be unnotable beyond a brief mention in Elon Musk within a few months if not weeks time. --AnotherWeatherEditor (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)~

Delete - definitely a problematic article per WP:NOTNEWS. I saw one comment argue that WP:NOTNEWS might not apply per WP:LASTING and WP:RECENT. But this article is neither of those - very questionable to say it will have a lasting effect, and I also do not see how it could be consider a positive example of recentism (the page gives 2004 Pitcairn Islands sexual assault trial as a positive example). Thinking about the article, I do believe it is not fit to own up to the WP:10YEARTEST. Brat Forelli🦊 17:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
The 10 year test is another great example of something that's often invoked as a delete rationale when it really shouldn't be. It very explicitly asks editors not to do that. From WP:10YEARTEST: Just wait and see. Remember there is no deadline, and consensus can change later on. Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today's events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball. This is especially true during a news spike, when there is mass interest to create and update articles on a current event, regardless of whether it may be historically significant later on. and Above all else, editors should avoid getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Here I am thinking of the core of the WP:10YEARTEST - Will someone ten or twenty years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten or twenty years will this addition still appear relevant? The answer would be, per WP:CRYSTALBALL that you mentioned, "we don't know". And so in case when lasting notability is uncertain, we delete. Articles get deleted when the lasting relevance cannot be proven, rather than when its irrelevance can be proven.

We also have this passage: Furthermore, detailed stand-alone articles and lists may no longer comply with the general notability guideline, particularly the "Presumed" criterion. Content that seemed notable at the time might, in retrospect, violate what Wikipedia is not and other guidelines. And on WP:GNG, we have this: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not. And indeed, this article does violate what Wikipedia is not - WP:NOTNEWS. Brat Forelli🦊 12:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
How does this violate NOTNEWS? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to invoke "the core" of a guideline or essay in a way that thoroughly contradicts what said guideline or essay says about what it is and how to (& how not to) use it.

The 10 year test provides a great example of what it's actually suggesting: when writing an article about a recent or ongoing election, it can be tempting to add every last minutia to the article, but the page doesn't really need to be any lengthier than articles about more distant elections. It's a good thing for editors to keep in mind when adding new content.

Most importantly, the 10 year test clarifies that it's something that should be invoked in hindsight, not foresight: "After "recentist" articles have calmed down and the number of edits per day has dropped to a minimum, why not initiate comprehensive rewrites?"

The 10 year test also goes into painstaking detail, as I've mentioned above, to clarify what it is not. It is not asking editors to assume they know for a fact that this or that won't be notable in the future. It asks editors not to do that. It is not a valid deletion rationale, it specifically says AfD is the wrong way to try to deal with recentism bias.

What I've learned over the years is this: if you're invoking NOTNEWS in a deletion discussion, you're probably using it wrong; if you're invoking WP:10YT in a deletion discussion, you're definitely using it wrong.

Vanilla Wizard 💙 11:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. The whole page resembles a gossip article (I'm amazed at the amount of users who agree to keep it). In addition, the fact that some American users don't know what an actual fascist salute is, and are indignant at every single arm raised, is extremely detrimental to this article; Elon Musk's gesture is more articulated and complex than the fascist salute (which doesn't detract from the fact that he could have spared the gesture). JacktheBrown (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think the topic is inherently a gossip article, but you're right that it's going sideways right now with how much is being added in. I just deleted William Shatner's response from the article. This is going to take a lot of watching and editing, and it already needs to be trimmed back and focused. We can't include every social media reaction, if any should be included at all. (The Reddit bans are likely the only relevant ones.) Dflovett (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep or Merge into an appropriate article. Converge is still coming from many Reliable sources, across many different aspects. Seems more than a run of mill news story. WP:NOTNEWS does not in fact mean we can't have articles on things that have been in the news. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 19:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete or Merge. This is a case of social media virality which I doubt people will pay anywhere near as much attention to in 12 months time. And if I'm wrong about that, deletion isn't permanent–the article can always be undeleted in the future in the (in my opinion unlikely) event this becomes a focus of lasting interest. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge in to Elon Musk and Second inauguration of Donald Trump. If this article is to exist, we might as well have articles for all of his controversies and the controversies of other equally notable people. Sushidude21! (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: create a Public image of Elon Musk article comparable to Public image of Barack Obama, Public image of Roman Reigns, Public image of Mariah Carey, etc., and merge this there. BD2412 T 01:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
That's a great suggestion. Such an article would be quite useful, since Musk's image has changed a lot over time. That article would of course contain a section (four or five paragraphs, I guess) about the arm gesture scandal. Good solution. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a terrific idea but I think this could be merged into that as well as second inauguration of Donald Trump and Elon Musk and/or Political activities of Elon Musk. Sushidude21! (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a great idea actually, and I would support this alternative proposal (or at least support merging if a Public image of Elon Musk article doesn't get created). As others have already stated, this article fails WP:NEWSEVENT, particularly WP:LASTING. Months (or even weeks) from now, when Musk eventually makes headlines for other reasons, this "gesture controversy" (which isn't even stated in wikivoice to be a Nazi salute) will be old news. Actually, it might be old news already considering the "Elon Musk gesture controversy" article received only 891 page views yesterday (January 27). That's not a significant amount of page views for a "notable" event. Some1 (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
800+ views in 24 hours puts this in the very top tier of all wikipedia articles, the average is 560 a month... This is getting more than that a day. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the source for the views, on January 28 there were 2290 views on the article. A massive increase day over dayPancho507 (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
@Chrisahn, Sushidude21!, and Some1: I have initiated Public image of Elon Musk from content copied from (though not yet deleted from) Elon Musk. Please expand as needed. BD2412 T 19:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete after selective merge to Elon Musk and/or Political activities of Elon Musk. There is no independent notability here of this event that cannot be covered in those articles. This article will simply become a WP:COATRACK in violation of WP:BLP otherwise. There's maybe 4-5 sentences total of actually due coverage and that can be easily covered in the main articles related to Elon Musk. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
As pointed out by other users, it’s impossible for there to be actual secondary sources this close to an event. The news is a primary source for.. well.. what’s in the news. Secondary sources do not come until at least after the “hoopla” has died down. But so long as it’s being reported as a current event, the news is by definition a primary source. Thus does not qualify for GNG. If/when the news starts reporting on this in depth as part of historical analysis/investigative journalism separate from the normal news cycle, then they may be considered a secondary source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 17:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
the linked section (WP:PRIMARYNEWS) literally says the opposite of "it’s impossible for there to be actual secondary sources this close to an event" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
It doesn’t though? It says clearly that contemporary news temporally related to an event is not a secondary source. And it provides multiple sources of its own to back that up. Please read the examples provided of when news is a secondary source and provide me a link to any news media source being discussed that meets one of those criteria. At the current time all of the “secondary sources” are contemporary news reports of the event, which are by definition primary sources. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 17:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
It doesn't say that, "temporally related to an event" doesn't even make sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
It does, using other words. For example, it uses “contemporary” sources to mean those temporally close to the event. As a result, an event may happen on Monday afternoon, may be written about in Tuesday morning's newspapers, and may be added to Wikipedia just minutes later. Many editors—especially those with no training in historiography—call these newspaper articles "secondary sources". Most reliable sources in academia name typical contemporary newspaper stories as primary sources. It also states Several academic research guides name newspaper articles written at the same time as the event as one kind of primary source. and "In the humanities, age is an important factor in determining whether an article is a primary or secondary source. and "The key, in most cases, is determining the origin of the document and its proximity to the actual event".

So to claim that it doesn’t say that temporal relation is important is either proof you didn’t even read the linked explanation, or that you’re being intentionally dense. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
"contemporary news temporally related to an event" doesn't make any sense then... contemporary and temporally related to an event would be synonyms. And note that none of that equals "it’s impossible for there to be actual secondary sources this close to an event" (I don't deny its importance, I deny your absolute when the link is the opposite of absolute) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
They are synonyms in this context. There’s an implied “relatively” before the contemporary - in other words, it means “contemporary in relation to the event”. It even gives examples of this - while a dictionary is typically a tertiary source, an ancient dictionary that is used to describe the meaning of a word in ancient times is a primary source, because it was contemporary at the time.

I’ll freely admit that was a bit of mild hyperbole to say “impossible”… but unless/until someone actually provides actual secondary sources for this event, they haven’t been shown to exist. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd say wild not mild but it seems we're on the same page now even if we disagree on the larger issue here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Why do you continue commenting on semantics such as my exact choice of words rather than responding to my repeated requests that you provide examples of significant coverage in news sources that qualify as non-primary? At some point it becomes the assumption that you’re refusing to do so/arguing semantics because they simply don’t exist. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Arguing policy and guideline is not arguing semantics. You misrepresented an explanatory essay, I called you out for that misrepresentation. You trying to pivot away from that misrepresentation doesn't mean I have to follow. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
A hyperbole is not a “misrepresentation”. The explanatory essay does say the points I’ve been making, and it does so in a way that does not at all contradict PSTS, the actual policy. Since you have yet again (at least four times now) refused to or been unable to provide any actual sources that show the in depth analysis required of a sec ondary source (rather than just a compilation of reactions, or a short paragraph or two of analysis), I will continue to assume they don’t exist. The onus is on you to prove they do exist, and you can’t do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
If hyperbole is not misrepresenting claims by exaggerating them past what is truthful what is it? I would also note that it doesn't read as hyperbole, it reads as if it is to be taken literally. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
It's exaggeration. Exaggeration is not misrepresenting - it's an argumentative tool. If the link said the opposite of what I said (which you said it did, when it doesn't), that would be misrepresenting. Oh, wait, that means you misrepresented it actually! But sure, keep arguing semantics rather than providing the sources I've asked you to provide over 6 times now. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Exaggeration is literally representing something as something other than what it is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Are you going to provide sources after I ask you for the 7th time? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
You can ask as many times as you like, that you keep asking rather than listening to my responses suggests WP:IDNHT. Interestingly enough we categorize the article Exaggeration under defence mechanisms, diversionary tactics, and deception. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm asking you to provide sources because, as shown below, the sources you can provide are not "significant secondary coverage". They are at best a paragraph or two of comparison, and then a bunch of "fluff" about history. Or even worse, they're merely collections of reactions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Strong Keep There is a high level of notability and the article is well sourced. Saying that this article should be deleted or merged is comparable to saying that the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy article should be deleted or merged into the Super Bowl XXXVIII article. There's more than enough individual notability to keep this article. Johnny Rose 11 (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Strong Keep: Certainly notable in context of modern political times, as documented by copious sources as ascendant global fascism that some prefer to ignore or conceal, perhaps including by deleting this article. Maybe merge later as future developments may warrant. soibangla (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
@Soibangla: "...as documented by copious sources as ascendant global fascism...". The fact is that some (American) users obsessed with the word "fascist" ignore its true and real meaning (for example, thinking that Donald Trump and Elon Musk are fascists means never having opened a history book or watched a documentary, preferably in Italian, on the topic of fascism); unfortunately, this is a very serious problem for some pages of the site, like this one. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. The coverage is immense. That's all that needs to be said. Surtsicna (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
What secondary sources treat the gesture as a subject? What do they say about it? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Does that matter? Apparently, it's enough to write a detailed article about it, clearly demonstrating public interest. Maxeto0910 (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it matters. Because without sources, this does not meet WP:GNG. And that is the policy per WP:N. This must meet GNG and not be excluded under [WP:NOT]], otherwise the article is not notable per policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
I am of the same opinion as Horse Eye's Back here; I can see plenty of secondary sources and fail to see why these should not be compatible with WP:NOTNEWS, just like said user explained already. Also, even if it didn't: as far as I understand, Wikipedia's general notability guideline is merely an indicator concerning inclusion (and even then it's more like a rule of thumb)—not exclusion—, meaning that certain articles may still be deleted even when they clearly fulfill the guideline, while others may be kept even when there are disagreements about it. I see it like this. Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
That essay says don't just say "meets GNG" in a deletion discussion, without evidencing why an article meets GNG. And that is exactly what is happening here. Lots and lots and lots of people are saying "keep" and no one, and this includes Horse Eye's Back, are bothering with a source analysis that shows how this is notable. Articles absolutely must meet GNG to be included. WP:N says:
A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG); and

It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

That is the standard. So we absolutely need to see secondary sources. You say you see plenty. Would you be prepared to demonstrate just 3 that are secondary sources that show that this arm gesture is of permanent historical encyclopaedic notability? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep, at the very least for now, based on Vanilla Wizard's arguments. I think folding it into the inauguration article conceals it in said article in an unhelpful manner, and I think calls for deletion are at best unfounded claims about a lack of current notability or future possible notability, and at worst an attempt to stifle awareness and debate of a very controversial event. RocksInMyDryer (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge to Elon Musk but do not keep. Failing a merge outcome this is a very clear delete. There are many people voting keep, stating these are strong or hard views. Yet not a single secondary source has been identified that treats this gesture as a subject in its own right. All we have is a load of news reporting (primary sources, per WP:PRIMARYNEWS and related policy). Such sources do not count towards notability. As usual we have people believing it must be notable because they saw it on TV or read it in the news, but it is not. Notability for an encyclopaedic article isbased on whether there is secondary coverage about the article topic: the arm gesture and its enduring significance. What we have is coverage of Elon Musk (certainly worthy of encyclopaedic coverage) but not about the significance of the arm gesture. As per the banner at the top of this page, this is not a vote and so far no one has attempted to show, from sources, why this topic meets WP:N. And it doesn't. It doesn't beause we lack secondary sources (arm 1 of WP:N) and it doesn't because Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so it is also excluded under arm 2 of WP:N. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

By that logic, we ought not to have the article about Trump's second presidential inauguration either because all we have is a load of news reporting. Surtsicna (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:WAX Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I think Surtsicna's objection is sensible, not being a case of "other stuff exists", but rather questioning your central argument concerning notability. Maxeto0910 (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The central argument is that not a single keep vote has bothered to present one single secondary source on the page subject. That is, this page does not meet WP:N because there are no secondary sources, and it does not meet WP:N because it is excluded under WP:NOTNEWS. That is a policy objection. Refutation of th epolicy argument requires a source analysis, not hand waves at other stuff. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

You can't just vaguely hand wave at other stuff you actually need to make the argument... How is this excluded under WP:NOTNEWS? We also seem to have dozens of secondary sources, most of those feature length pieces contain analysis which makes them secondary. You're demanding a lot from others but providing absolutely no evidence which supports your position. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

"How is this excluded under WP:NOTNEWS?" See 2. most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. What is required, and what has not been shown by anyone, is a secondary source that shows that people consider the arm gesture he made to be a secondary subject of itself, with lasting impact, and not just reporting on Musk. Why will people be writing papers or histories about this arm gesture? Articles are shown to be notable at AfD by sources, not feelings. Now is the time to discuss them. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

And how do you get from there to this being excluded? Its not written in news style and keeping this article doesn't contradict the first half. Especially in the context of "Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." which in your argument apparently doesn't exist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Merely containing analysis does not make an article secondary. If that article is primarily reporting on a current event, then merely connecting it to other events or similar is part of that primary reporting. In-depth historical analysis of this event is not occurring yet. It is just typical news handwaving. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYNEWS says "Yale University's guide to comparative literature lists newspaper articles as both primary and secondary sources, depending on whether they contain an interpretation of primary source material." and unless I am mistaken interpretation and analysis are synonyms in this context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

This is not merely a piece that provides one or two comments from someone who is labeled an "analyst" in the source, but is a major work that collects, compares, and analyzes information. Please provide evidence of a “major work” that collects, compares, and analyzes information? There aren’t any yet. Merely containing some “analysis” or some reactions from other people to the news doesn’t make it a secondary source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

That is an example, not a standard that has to be met. The policy here is WP:PSTS and you appear to be going well beyond that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I’m not though, PSTS makes the same requirements (emphasis mine): Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment. For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources.

Merely discounting an essay that expands on that to further clarify without an actual argument as to why that essay is wrong is not appropriate. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

"A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." and note that very little of what we are using is breaking news, most is separated from the event by a few days. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, a few statements of reactions by others does not analysis make. A mere compilation of similar events does not analysts make. The news reports are “this happened, this is what some random people said about it”. That is not analysis or interpretation. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

You're deflecting again, you were wrong about what constitutes breaking news. Compilation would appear to be a synonym for synthesis in this context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

No, you are the one deflecting. I’ve asked you to provide sources that would qualify as secondary in your mind. You can’t even do that, because they don’t exist. The sources that exist right now are primary sources - maybe some of them have a short paragraph or two of analysis, but they are primarily collections of reports about and reactions to the event. A couple short paragraphs is not “significant coverage” in a secondary source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Thats putting the cart before the horse, first we need to establish what significant coverage is in this context. Are you are arguing that compilation and synthesis are not synonyms in this context? And if so what do they mean then? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

A compilation is a document that takes outside information and republishes it, without more than basic care/selection of what they publish. An example of a compilation would b e the "reactions" sections of most Wikipedia articles. Another example would be a news article that, without providing any new information, simply publishes the reaction of one person from each "side" of an argument.

Synthesis refers to coming to new conclusions or generating new information, opinion, or details from already published works. An example of this would be a news article that performed an analysis of the exact (or close to exact) proportion of examined responses that supported or opposed an idea/"side". That information regarding that proportion would be synthesis - but the rest of the article would still be primary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The reactions sections of a wikipedia article isn't a reliable source so the example confuses me. Are you arguing that if a source contains a majority of primary coverage the secondary coverage in it doesn't count towards notability? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, because the GNG specifically says significant coverage in secondary sources. A couple short paragraphs of analysis is not significant coverage. You can’t use the primary parts of an article for notability unless the secondary parts are significant. This does, inherently, mean that most news from around the time of the event will not impart notability, since most of it will be mostly primary in nature. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Multiple paragraphs of analysis is in fact significant coverage in most contexts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

“Paragraphs” in news articles are typically one or two sentences, and short. They do this for readability. If there’s a news article with multiple long paragraphs (4-5 sentences each) of analysis that is not merely repeating the reaction of others, feel free to post it here rather than just claiming it exists and saying “trust me”. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

You're going backwards, you already learned that analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis all count but you're still insisting on analysis being the only valid way forwards (you've even crafted an argument where synthesis is just a subset of analysis which doesn't make sense... Why list it separately if its wholly contained within another category?) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

How about you go back to the actual sources here, rather than arguing about hypotheticals? Provide the sources you claim count as significant secondary coverage and I’ll explain why they’re not. Without talking about specific sources, all you’re doing is deflecting. This is now the eighth time I’ve asked you to go back to the AfD discussion so we can discuss specifics. If your next reply is not sources to discuss, I will assume (and encourage others to assume based on your IDHT behavior) that you cannot provide them because they don’t exist. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

And I've already said that its a pointless exercise because you don't understand what constitutes significant secondary coverage (or if you do understand you've chosen to be deceptive, diversionary, and defensive). No matter what I put up there you're going to claim that it doesn't count. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Then provide them as examples explaining why you think they’re significant secondary coverage. You don’t get to just preach to me that you’re right and I’m wrong and then not provide the sources you claim meet that criteria. You keep arguing definitions which means nothing if we’re not looking at a specific source to decide if it meets those definitions. This is not WT:PSTS, it’s an AfD. So if you’re going to claim that the sources exist that qualify as significant secondary coverage, you must identify them. Else your argument is null and void. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Please review WP:SATISFY. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a rather weak response. I agree with Berchanhimez: You should provide examples of sources that you believe qualify as significant secondary coverage. If you don't, it's quite reasonable to assume you don't have any and can't find any. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd be interested in hearing an argument as to why this doesn't count , but thats more for my own amusement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be an issue here with editors reading WP:NEWS as "news sources never count as sources and no news is notable, ever". Cortador (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Cool, one source - I'll agree that would qualify as significant coverage - but only barely so. There are maybe 3-4 "actual" paragraphs (i.e. 4-5 sentences in length) about his gesture specifically, combined with as much (or more) general discussion over the history of the gesture. Feel free to provide more sources though, since one source alone doesn't meet GNG. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Evaluation of an events place within the historical context or against the historical record is significant coverage. Here is more: Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The sources you're linking to (as evidenced below) are dedicating at most one or two paragraphs to the actual "evaluation of an events place within the historical context". A source does not provide significant coverage by simply saying "this happened and here's some related history". That's not "evaluation", it's reporting. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The source doesn't simply say "this happened and here's some related history." In addition to the evaluation of its historical context there is also analysis "However, Musk’s actions appear to have enthused neo-Nazi and white nationalist groups." "Musk is also close friends with right-wing Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who was once a youth leader of the neo-fascist Italian Social Movement." and synthesis "Musk later stated that he and X were opposed to all forms of anti-Semitism. However, in recent months, Musk has backed the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in February’s general election. In May, AfD leader Bjorn Hocke was fined for saying, “Everything for Germany!” in a speech in 2021, a slogan used by Nazi paramilitary forces and now banned in the country." if you would like additional sources which give signficant coverage to the salute's context I suggest Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

None of those are analysis, they are simple reporting on context. Even if I accept your argument that those are analysis, 3 short sentences of analysis does not "significant coverage" make. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

You keep acting like analysis is required... It isn't, its only one part of significant coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Analysis is a key part of a secondary source, which is required for GNG. Merely reporting on facts or reactions is not a secondary source. Merely reporting on history for "context" without actually analyzing that history as it applies to the situation being reported is not "significant coverage". GNG is not one or the other. It's either significant secondary coverage, or if it's only one of those two things, it's not useful for GNG. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

What is required is "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" not "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and synthesis" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

So, since we agree they didn't "analyze", what did they "evaluate"? What did they "interpret"? What did they "synthesize"? They didn't. The sources you are trying to use are mere indiscriminate collection of information - in other words, a typical news report. The closest is the NYT piece but even that only contains about 2 paragraphs total of "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis". The rest of it is merely news reporting. And that does not create significant coverage. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't appear to agree. For example "However, Musk’s actions appear to have enthused neo-Nazi and white nationalist groups." is clearly secondary analysis. News reports also aren't an "indiscriminate collection of information" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

One sentence does not significant coverage make. If all you can pick out is the same 2-3 sentences as examples of "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" then that is not significant secondary coverage. It is a couple sentences of secondary coverage in an otherwise primary article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Thats what most secondary coverage is, it doesn't matter how much of the source is primary as long as the secondary is in there. You also still appear to be rejecting that evaluation within context is secondary, its those sentences on top of the historical evaluation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

It does matter. Because an insignificant amount of secondary coverage does not suddenly become significant just because there's a bunch of primary fluff added. Otherwise, there would be no need to define significant. Merely providing paragraphs and paragraphs context is not "evaluation within context". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

We do define it, just very differently from how you do... "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be the main topic of the source material, but it does need to be significant secondary coverage. Merely reporting on the news of an event, even if there's a few sentences of "context", is not significant secondary coverage. A source that has significant primary coverage of an event and then a few sentences of secondary coverage is not significant secondary coverage. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

A few sentences is more than a trivial mention... That is literally significant coverage as wikipedia defines it, you're out of line here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Strong Keep due to the major and lasting political implications in the United States. Roman Biggus (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep. My first thought was to merge but there's so much here that it would be a prime candidate for being split out again, so let's not waste everybody's time with that. Even if the article could be tightened up a little I can't see any scope to trim it greatly. It is never going to be small enough to merge. There are so many conflicting voices and angles that merit inclusion here. It's not just a one-off news event. It is an actual issue that will reverberate for some time, even if Musk manages to restrain his arm in future. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Hello everyone. It seems like some editors are intrested in seeing secondary sources about this article. I did a quick search and this is what i found. [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9]. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Source 1 is significant coverage, sure.
Source 2 is not significant coverage of his gesture, it's a report on the history of the gesture. That would be significant coverage about the gesture as a whole, but not this particular instance of it.
Source 3 - ditto. Like 3-4 sentences at most about this gesture, combined with a historical review that is devoid of analysis.
Source 4 is a collection of reactions and a history of the gesture as a whole - not significant coverage of this event.
Source 5 is an opinion piece masquerading as news. It is primarily the personal opinion of the author (So when I say that Elon Musk gave a Nazi salute at Trump’s inauguration on Monday, I am doing so only because I can see no other plausible interpretation of his gesture.) and a collection of other reactions. That is not secondary coverage - that is primary coverage per merely being a collection of reactions without any significant analysis.
Source 6 is the same - barely a paragraph worth of actual "substance" (analysis/etc) and then a collection of reactions from other people.
Source 7 is an opinion piece - it's the opinion of one individual - primary.
Source 8 is news reporting (primary) and history about the gesture (not coverage about this event) except for one paragraph (the last paragraph).
Source 9 isn't even a hidden opinion piece, it's explicitly labeled as one.

If these are truly the best sources that can be found, then this does not meet GNG. But even if people think some of these are borderline "significant" coverage in "secondary" sources, that does not mean there needs to be a standalone article, regardless. There is no reason that this cannot be covered in Elon Musk or other articles sufficiently. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

New York Times article reporting on the salute and then discussing the history of that kind of salute. The article is primary news reporting with reference to Musk. It is tertiary with respect to the history of the salute. It does not discuss the historical significance of Musk's use of the salute as a secondary subject at all. N
The Conversation article titled Elon Musk and the history of the ‘Roman salute’ . Same comments as above. The tertiary coverage here is about the history of the salute, but nothing in the article speaks to this gesture by this person at this time as a historically significant encyclopaedic subject. These sources would both be okay for an article on the history of that type of salute (but I say just OK, because such an article would likely find better sources. N
Al Jazeera also giving us the history of the salute. Are we seeing a theme here? We have notability of some article, but not this article. N
Historians disagree over the significance of Musk’s gesture. This one is mostly news reporting, but oh look, with a history of the so called Roman salute. As above. N
- Straight primary news. Op eds fall within that, per policy. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS and links to the policy. N
Largely primary news reporting with a little history of the salute. Again, an article can be written about the salute in general (if we don't have one) but there is no secondary coverage of the historical relevance of this particular usage as an encyclopaedic subject. N
The article argues that this occurrence of this gesture by Musk is not significant. That is, it is an article that specifically argues that there is nothing to see here. As for others, it does so with reference to the history of the salute. That history is tertiary, but is not about the page subject. There is therefore no secondary information here that supports this page subject. N
Same again. News reporting with tertiary history of the salute. The news reporting is primary. There is no secondary analysis of Musk's use of the gesture as a permanently notable historical subject. N
An op-ed, which falls squarely in WP:PRIMARYNEWS N

So none of these demonstrate notability for this article. If we were discussing Roman salute these would demonstrate notability, although the sources would not be great. The tertiary coverage would help demonstrate notability for Roman salute because tertiary coverage implies the existence of the secondary sources, but it is the secondary sources that would be used for the article. But in any case, that is not the article at AfD. For this article, we have nothing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure more can be found. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

More isn't the problem. It's the quality of them - not overall, but their quality in terms of showing notability. None of these are significant secondary coverage of this event specifically, except arguably the first one and even that one is borderline. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you're confusing WP:TERTIARY with what is actually secondary. I;m also not seeing anything which supports the contention that the Vox piece is an op-ed, the author is not one of Vox's editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

No, the secondary source is the history as compiled and synthesised from primary sources by the historians. Articles that are based on those secondary sources are tertiary. The distinction makes little difference for notability purposes. Tertiary sources imply the existence of secondary sources, so we can use those as an indication of notability (of something). But they make a difference when it comes to writing the article. If you want to write an article on the Roman salute (as has happened, of course), then a bunch of newspaper articles that are synthesised from the information in history books are a pretty poor place to start writing from. Instead of using those articles, we should be using the books those article writers used. But that is a side issue, because the reason these sources don't pass muster is because they are talking about the history of the salute and are not about the historical significance of Musk's gesture. As it is a side issue, I won't keep replying on the matter here. Ping me to your talk page if you want to discuss secondary vs tertiary further. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Its not a side issue, it appears to be the core of your argument (and does make a big difference for notability purposes). I will decline the invitation to my own talk page, thank you very much. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

(AI generated summary): Keep. I reviwed the various positions, and I tried to come to a consensus. This topic meets the general notability guideline due to substantial coverage across multiple reliable sources (including major international outlets such as The New York Times, BBC, Al Jazeera, and others). This coverage goes beyond trivial mentions and provides analysis, context, and commentary on the gesture’s political and cultural significance, satisfying the requirement for “significant coverage.”

Additionally, the argument that this might violate WP:NOTNEWS is unconvincing because Wikipedia is permitted to cover significant current events when sources provide in-depth analysis, not merely routine reporting. The “event in question” has elicited sustained coverage from NGOs, political commentators, journalists, and even historians reflecting on the symbolism—much more than a transient news item. Thus, WP:LASTING can be presumed, as the incident has broader implications tied to Elon Musk’s public image, alleged political leanings, and related controversies.

Merger proposals do not adequately address the level of detail and volume of sources dedicated to this single incident. Folding all pertinent details into a broader article—e.g., Elon Musk, Political activities of Elon Musk, or Second inauguration of Donald Trump—risks cluttering those pages and diluting important context specific to this event. The material is extensive enough to justify a standalone article for readers who seek this information in one place. If later developments show the coverage to be fleeting, a merge can still be revisited; however, the present breadth of sources suggests ongoing significance.

Deletion proposals rely heavily on the argument that coverage is “short-term” or “sensational,” but the persistent international attention suggests otherwise. Likewise, concerns about WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE can be managed by properly balancing the content and reflecting all reliable sources in a neutral tone, rather than erasing the topic altogether. The concept of undue weight does not mean ignoring or deleting a widely covered incident; rather, it demands careful sourcing and neutral presentation, which this article already strives to uphold.

If I were an admin: because strong policy-based arguments support maintaining this as a separate article, a “no consensus” outcome would default to Keep anyway. However, given the robust coverage, the presence of ongoing public discourse, and the significance to Musk’s broader controversies, the best outcome is an outright Keep, with future merges or consolidations decided only if coverage ultimately proves non-enduring.

AlanGiulio (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

This coverage goes beyond trivial mentions and provides analysis, context, and commentary on the gesture’s political and cultural significance. Does it? Where? No one has shown any sources at all that show that Musk's gesture (as opposed to the Roman salute in general) had political and cultural significance. Or is the AI just saying that, rather than you, because that is what arguments are supposed to say at AfD? What evidence in secondary sources do we actually have that this gesture was politically and culturally significant? Per the analysis above: it looks like none at all. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

(Human-written): I looked at the sources cited above, and while I agree to some of your criticism, I sill feel that:

NYT provides important coverage, analysis and historical context. So this is a good source for this discussion,
The Guardian provides both historical context and significant coverage. Also this is a good source to take into account
Politico provides significant secondary analysis and meaningful evaluation, and also this

Under WP:GNG, even a few lines of in-depth analysis qualify as "significant coverage," particularly when they offer an interpretative framework. WP:GNG merely demands that coverage of the Musk gesture be more than a passing reference and include sufficient interpretative information to eliminate the need for original research. The article does not have to be about the Musk gesture in its entirety.

Hence, several prominent publications offer precisely the kind of interpretative coverage that WP:PRIMARYNEWS refers to as "secondary," even if prudence is necessary with each new topic. There are more than a few passing lines in that coverage. It displays context, depth, professional advice, and a range of opinions. That is, IMO, enough to keep the article up to date under WP:GNG. Wikipedia lets us merge if it turns out to be temporary, but considering the story's extensive coverage and continuing importance, it would be premature to remove it now. AlanGiulio (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Your AI wrote: multiple major outlets provide exactly the sort of interpretive coverage that WP:PRIMARYNEWS calls “secondary.”

You wrote: several prominent publications offer precisely the kind of interpretative coverage that WP:PRIMARYNEWS refers to as "secondary,"

Pretty similar. :-) Like the AI, you didn't adhere to MOS: LOGICAL, but at least you didn't copy the AI's violation of MOS:STRAIGHT. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

But on a more serious note – I don't think that claim about WP:PRIMARYNEWS is correct. Which of its definitions of secondary sources do you mean? There are several, and they are far from unanimous. To some extent, they even contradict each other. Which is not a criticism of PRIMARYNEWS – it's a difficult and subtle issue, and scholars apparently don't agree on one definition. Because of that, it doesn't even make sense to use words like "precisely" or "exactly" when referring to secondary sources per PRIMARYNEWS, because the definitions given there are neither precise nor exact. Also, the sources listed by you and others match none of the examples in WP:PRIMARYNEWS#Examples of news reports as secondary sources. Chrisahn (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

You bring up a valid point: Being nuanced, WP:PRIMARYNEWS makes clear that different academic guides have varied definitions of news-based sources. I agree that there isn't a universally applicable definition of "secondary source"; in fact, categorization schemes used by historians, libraries, and Wikipedia itself might vary. Some of the referenced stories, such as Politico, The Guardian, and NYT, go beyond simple event-reporting or "spot" journalism, in my opinion. They include interpretative information that is placed apart from the facts, or what WP:PRIMARYNEWS refers to as "analysis, commentary, evaluation". For example:

In terms of contextual/comparative discussion: both Politico and The Guardian place Musk's gesture into the larger political context of Europe by referencing the interpretations of leaders, government ministers, and media personalities in light of historical and cultural sensitivities. They are also investigating if this gesture qualifies as a "Nazi salute," talking about how it may affect the atmosphere around the German election, and describing how it appeals to far-right groups.

Then, in terms of historicity and commentary: some media specifically draws comparisons between this gesture and the Hitler salute, the pre-World War II "Roman salute," or a contemporary form of extreme symbology. Scholars or political leaders are interviewed regarding the gesture's importance. They offer interpretive framing that is absent from unfiltered, day-of-event reporting by offering comments on historical parallels.

I think that coverage does not have to verbatim match one of WP:PRIMARYNEWS bullet points in order to be considered secondary. The final criterion is whether the article offers interpretation or analysis in addition to who, what, when, and where. A source may contain pockets of "secondary" comments mixed in with its "primary" content. For example, Politico and The Guardian go far beyond "He extended his arm" by gathering several points of view, contrasting them, and delving into the symbolism. Therefore, even if these news sources are reporting on current events, they also offer opinion or an editorial viewpoint, which pushes them, in my opinion, clearly into "secondary" zone. AlanGiulio (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Was any of this written by you (the human who presumably controls the account AlanGiulio)? If yes, you should clarify which parts are human and which parts are machine, or preferably delete the machine-generated parts. Or is the comment fully machine-generated? If it is, I think the comment should be struck or deleted. We should not allow machine-generated content in discussions like this one. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The message I posted above was 99% AI generated. What follows is written by me: I am absolutely not against deleting it. It is more an exercise, and this is why I clearly stated this is an AI-generated summary. The discussion is getting huge and I felt that it could be a bit complicated to keep track of all of it. But if an admin wants to delete it, as it might violate rules on Wikipedia I am not aware of (apologies for that in advance), I have absolutely nothing to object. Still, I highlight the fact that such a discussion is just very cumbersome to grasp on its wholeness. AlanGiulio (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I deleted the other machine-generated comment you just added. I'm sorry, and I usually wouldn't delete other users' comments, but that one was extremely long, and not really yours anyway... I had a quick look, but didn't find out if there already is an AI policy. I don't think the stuff you generated is useful, mainly because we don't know what the AI is doing. For example, when person P mentions WP:GNG, we can reasonably assume that P has actually read and understood (at least large parts of) GNG. But what did the AI do? How was it trained? What was its input? Did you paste this whole page into ChatGPT? In that case, it probably just regurgitated mentions of GNG without 'understanding' what it means. I'm not going to do it, and I don't know what admins may think about it, but if you want, you could delete or ~~strike~~ your machine-generated stuff. — Chrisahn (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chrisahn, the following vpp discusion may be a useful read Wikipedia:Village_pump (policy)/Archive_199#LLM/chatbot comments in discussions. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I went through the discussion. I think there is a very good point: AI is basically only good at summarizing, as it lacks any "real" reasoning. Summarizing via AI can be done by anyone, and there is no need for a user to do so for the other ones. Admins are capable of doing it too, while doing their own evaluation. So if we all start doing it, it will just make the discussion crumble over self-summarizing of summaries. We shall just avoid using any AI content. I will lave the text of the first AI-comment I posted as there are human-written content below, but I feel it is better to avoid using AI to generate text in the future, even if "just" in the discussion pages. AlanGiulio (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep per the votes to delete this article. From what I've read here, votes to delete are either based on their own political beliefs, on the nomination's seemingly erroneous understanding of what WP:NOTNEWS is, or on their speculation that an event that only just happened is not notable. This has received international coverage, and I'm sure it will continue to receive coverage. Neo Purgatorio (pester!) 21:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
The !votes to delete are based on the fact that this does not meet GNG (no secondary sources have been given) and that it also fails WP:N based on WP:NOT. Those are unrefuted policy reasons for deletion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
I can see all of one (maybe two) votes that mention GNG or secondary sources; most of them either agree with the NOTNEWS claim, are saying it's too recent or are very clearly only voting because they have a political bias. Your other reasoning for votes is either based off of NOTNEWS (which people here are clearly in disagreement of) or nothing at all. Neo Purgatorio (pester!) 22:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
So you can see the unrefuted claim that this does not meet GNG. And NOT is the second arm of WP:N too. So, are there any secondary sources that, in fact, would allow this to meet GNG? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Repeating something over and over again won't make it true... Other people clearly believe that the claim has been refuted, you are welcome to your own opinion on how to interpret policy and guideline but most of us don't agree with you (actually as far as I can tell nobody fully agrees with you, you even disagree with berchanhimez about whether or not the NYT feature piece counts as significant coverage). Please respect that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Asking for the evidence doesn't make it true, agreed. Failure to provide or find any evidence, on the other hand... Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Since you made the initial claim - there being no secondary sources, which is, quite frankly, preposterous - the onus is on you to demonstrate that and convince others that you are correct. Others aren't obligated to substantiate your claims. Cortador (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
See the above source analysis. Nothing else has been added. Note, we don't ask people to prove a negative. The purpose of AfD is to post and discuss the sourcing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
The rest of us just don't appear to accept the competence of your source analysis (again not a single other editor appears to fully agree with your analysis). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I find the sourcing to be fine. I'm not changing my vote. Neo Purgatorio (pester!) 19:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep. The article's subject gained a widespread notoriety deserving of a standalone article. Onikaburgers (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Strong Keep as this is a significant event and will probably be significant for a while in the first year of Trump II. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

HARD Keep / Merge: The ambiguity of the Nazi Salute has reduced since the incident by his follow on actions. He made a series of Nazi puns on X. He appeared by video at AFD rally where he made comments offensive to Jewish Organizations who have announce their departure from his X/Twitter as a result: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/us-jewish-groups-to-leave-x-due-to-hate-antisemitism-under-elon-musk/

A priest had his license revoked: https://anglican.ink/2025/01/29/calvin-robinson-license-revoked-by-the-anglican-catholic-church-over-political-actions/ by his church for imitating Elon https://x.com/calvinrobinson/status/1884457011481325731?mx=2 Regardless of what Elon may claim was his intention it was clearly a Nazi Salute. His actions since then, and response of society at large as been the opposite and had lasting effects on individuals and organizations. Lets not forget that his father was a promenent member of the the Africaners in South Africa that are known to have modelled their salute on the Nazi Salute. He grew up seeing this salute in his community, so this is not accidental: https://www.independent.ie/world-news/africa/afrikaners-nazi-salute-at-terreblanche-funeral/26648303.html He also made anti-Jewish comments for which did a PR stunt at Auschwitz: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-68055368 The only thing out of character is his denial that it was a Nazi Salute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsvsfake (talk • contribs) 06:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Ayup. Skyerise (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Did he ever deny it? He said "Frankly, they need better dirty tricks. The “everyone is Hitler” attack is sooo tired." but never actually said "it was not that" or "it was not what I was meaning with it". AlanGiulio (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a news aggregator. So, we're going to have an article on what that clown did but can't muster the editor interest to create Svolta di Salerno/Salerno Turn, to randomly pick a missing but infinitely more encyclopedic but infinitely less sexy topic. Crazy place. DeCausa (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Feel free to translate that article from the itwiki. Subject bias and editor interest coverage on enwiki though isn't a deletion rationale. Gotitbro (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Of course it isn't. It's unclear why you bothered to reply. DeCausa (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
I think many of us would appreciate if you mustered the interest to create more English versions of Italian articles. Dflovett (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't speak Italian and am useless with machine translation so "many of us" will be disappointed. DeCausa (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep I believe this gesture has received sufficient attention from traditional media Equine-man (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge per WP:NOPAGE. Hemi pretty much outlines my thoughts. It can be covered in a few paragraphs effectively without a page of its own. If in months or a year it demonstrates enduring coverage, especially outside the context of the inauguration and/or Musk himself, then it can be spun back out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. Obviously and clearly meets WP:GNG from the amount of coverage, and not just in the immediate aftermath of the incident itself, but from copycat performances , police investigations in Germany , lawsuit threats , investor questions , as well as consequences for X links on social media as previous commenters have noted. In terms of merging/WP:NOPAGE, the main Elon Musk page is already very long and close to when a split is almost certainly required and currently discussing how to reasonably summarize this material there, and the relevant subpages are also quite long. It would be better to have one page that documents this event and its fallout and the other page to use WP:SUMMARYSTYLE descriptions instead of a haphazard organization. (is this a political activity of Elon Musk's, a view, or part of his public image?). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
To answer your question: It belongs mostly in Public image of Elon Musk, which currently contains two paragraphs about the issue. Political activities of Elon Musk contains three sentences. Views of Elon Musk had a longish section, but it was deleted after a short discussion. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi again, per earlier confession in discussion that was me and no objections so far 🤷 CNC (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
I also deleted the section at Nazi salute replaced it with an excerpt if I'm honest. Nobody cared, and I'm starting it to realise because editors don't want a tonne of undue content in other subjects. CNC (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't mean to criticize anyone. I tend to agree with the decision, since it's unclear whether Musk expressed any views with the gesture. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Good to know. In response, I also just deleted an entire section at Musk article as well. CNC (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep Similar to Patar knight's considerations, but looking at a different perspective. I was going to reference along the lines of WP:TOOBIG for the parent, but there is the political activities article at less than 3,000 words, so that main Musk article is it's own problems, not this one's (if summary style guidelines were followed etc). It's otherwise not that I'm opposed to a merge here, it's more so that I'd be very concerned by the outcome, based loosely on the WP:ARTICLESIZE. Mainly as it would de facto create a WP:FALSEBALANCE in the article; with 2,000 words of 4,700 - a full 40% of a newly merged child article - based on this controversial gesture within the scope of Musk's political activities. To me this would quite likely become a series WP:BLPVIO. Isolating the event to a standalone is to me the only option. I think we otherwise may just have to face the reality that Musk in WP has not just child articles now, but a new generation of grandchildren, due to his consideration notability. CNC (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
An editor has created a Public image of Elon Musk article, so this standalone article could be merged there (i.e. Public image of Elon Musk#Straight-arm gesture controversy. Some1 (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
That would be even worse false balance as a BLP violation, as two thirds of Musk's public image should not be based on his controversial ~~salute~~ gesture. I can't think of a more UNDUE article that would focus so much on one particular event of a BLP. I otherwise don't have any positive considerations for suggestions of trimming the content for such a merge, because of the documented history of failing to trim or summarise Musk subjects in parent articles, which would only be ~~kicking~~ passing an impossible task to other editors. Don't get me wrong I considered the idea of merging to parent by default "because it fits", but that's only applicable when you're not going to be dominating WP:SCOPE and overshadowing everything else that came before it. CNC (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Currently, ca. 22% of Public image of Elon Musk (measured in bytes) is concerned with the gesture controversy. That percentage is likely to decrease, because the article is brand new, suffers a bit from WP:RECENTISM, and so far lacks a LOT of information about how Musk's image changed in the last 20 years or so. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
I was measuring in words, because that's what's read rather than computed. Unless I am missing some excerpts or other transcended material here? I haven't checked that article in a while. CNC (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure which article you're talking about. On my phone, the body of Public image of Elon Musk (without the references) currently fills about five screens, of which the gesture controversy fills about 1.2 screens. Again, that's around 24%. As I said, that percentage is likely to go down. In the long run, I'm confident we can keep it at a level appropriate for the controversy's effect on Musk's biography. If it proves to have a lasting and significant effect, the percentage should remain at its current level or increase; but if its effect diminishes (which I think is very likely over the coming months), its percentage should decrease. I think we'll manage to do that, because when reliable sources talk about it less, editors' focus will also shift to other issues affecting Musk's public image.

Besides, having a separate article about the issue gives it much more weight than a section in a broader article, which would also violate WP:DUE and WP:BLP, if I understand your reasoning correctly. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep - The topic about these two gestures deserves retention separately because it already is notable independantly. A contoversy exists over interpretations being debated by observers, pundits, and defenders against interpretations by others. There is one gesture, but there are numerous interpretations, selecting an appropriate title where there are multiple possibilities without reinforcing one of the interpretations should be the WP choice — publish the psychoanalysis, projections, and defenses fully — describe the controversy, do not assert one of varied interpretations. Keep our encyclopedic style by providing the best factual information available on the topic. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep. There's enough notability to cover GNG a thousand times over. CR (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. This controversy has received enough attention that it is obviously important to let the vast number of people hearing about it to know all about it. It is also still a developing story, with more protests happening and copycats popping up. This clearly shows the necessity in keeping this page so people can keep track. GobiGrey (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Nagore Dargah Kalifa

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

Clear COI issues, since creator shares the same name as the article's title. Article is written with very poor grammar, and would need to be completely rewritten if kept. The author also created a second article, Kalifa Masthan Sahib, which appears to be a duplicate of this same topic. Not sure if the subject warrants a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete―poorly written and created to promote Kalifa Masthan Sahib.EmilyR34 (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Council for Registered Gas Installers

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

Declined prod. Only primary sources provided and largely uncited. A mere 3 google news hits including 1 from Dailymail. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment The subject is well known in the UK and was, previously, a government mandated official body (see for example ). As we know, notability is not temporary, though the article rather needs cleanup and referencing. A quick search on archive.org shows many book hits: . ResonantDis_tortion 17:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep CORGI, an official body that administrated >100,000 certified engineers for safe servicing of gas equipment in a major nation over a significant period of time, including making a significant difference reducing "gas accidents and deaths". Several citations added, including Guardian and Independent, an OECD report, and a HSE executive report. With much more coverage out there. Easily meets GNG. ResonantDis_tortion 23:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. Significant and very high profile organisation in the UK. Easily meets WP:GNG. As we should know, article notability is not judged solely on the references currently in the article, but on what's available in online and print sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

2035 AFC Asian Cup qualification

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Main article for the tournament doesn't even exist yet, and this was created way too early for no apparent reason. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Asia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete just a copy of the 2031 article (seriously, that exists too?) with minor adjustments. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle: I've now nominated that page for deletion as well. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete – Per WP:CRYSTAL. Svartner (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. We need to stamp out the perceived need to create articles several years ahead of time. This is ultimately detrimental to quality. Wikipedia does not stage a contest for the first creator of a topic. Geschichte (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

This event will happen ten years from now, so there may not be enough significant coverage at the moment. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to AFC Asian Cup or Delete – WP:CRYSTALBALL. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete—Laughably WP:TOOSOON. Anwegmann (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Ridiculous. CNC (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was merge‎ to Fifth column. I see a rough consensus against keeping this as a standalone article, and broad support for the merge as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 12:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Internal enemy

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

A WP:DICTDEF of a very commonly used epithet. I can see a merge to political repression but simply padding the article with more examples where the attack has been made is not actual improvement. Mangoe (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep Sources cited show it's a consistent concept with the potential for expansion into a non-stub article, not a "dictdef" or "epithet" as claimed. (t · c) buidhe 05:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Although, to be fair, this source suggests that a merge to fifth column could be considered, that's not a matter for AfD. (t · c) buidhe 05:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Update: not sure why every other editor in this discussion is ignoring the sources that are already cited in the article. I hope the closing admin takes that into account. (t · c) buidhe 04:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The very first source devotes a whopping two sentences to the fact that the ancient Greeks categorized internal and external enemies by a different word as an example of the relationship between politics and warfare, namedropping the Republic. Note however that the article does not bother to cite the Republic itself.

Every other source is just describing a fifth column. RakdosWitch (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete or Merge with Fifth Column. I don’t see how this article could ever go beyond a definition stub unless it gets overloaded with random examples. RakdosWitch (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Seconding delete/merge with Fifth Column as suggested by RakdosWitch. Sinclairian (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Can't be Merged to Fifth Column as this page is a redirect, not an article. Please check links before you suggest a page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete or Merge with Fifth Column for reasons provided by RakdosWitch. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment I am confused by the relister's statement that this page is a redirect, not an article. The nominated version certainly isn't a redirect, and I'm not seeing any point in the page history at which it was. Fifth Column is a redirect to Fifth column, but surely any !vote to merge/redirect to the former is really talking about the latter. XOR'easter (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Pedantry sells… but who’s buying? Obviously meant Fifth column RakdosWitch (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not pedantry. Closers work with statements made in a discussion by the participants. If you really meant Fifth column, then check the damn link and make sure you are suggesting the right target article. It's not the closer's job to make sure your comments are accurate or search for the right target. It's forbidden that we impose our own opinion or investigate, we work with what is suggested here by participants. Is it too complicated to check the links you suggest? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

If it was as obvious as the sky being blue and the grass being green what page I meant, you are being a pedant and allowing a false sense of bureaucratic “rightness” to interfere with a simple AfD. Chill. RakdosWitch (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

RakdosWitch, and what should we call editors with 45 edits that try to school users who have been editing for years? Are you evading a block? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I edit very sporadically because I am more concerned with page construction and meta discussions. I am more of a “lurker” and usually only jump in when it’s something I feel strongly about that I see mentioned elsewhere or that I stumble upon. I don’t see how my edit count is particularly relevant to whether or not it’s pedantic to go into a frothing rage over a bit of capitalization, and I don’t get why a random accusation of block evasion is going to make me think you’re not being a bit overzealous. Not relevant to the deletion discussion though! RakdosWitch (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I don't usually step into AfD discussions, but I just want to try and ask everyone to remain civil here.

To Liz, RakdosWitch's edit count has no relevance to the quality of their current points. On one hand I do believe RakdosWitch could have brought it up in a better way without hostility, 'check the damn link' feels like it also comes off too strong as a reply, especially accompanied with 'Is it too complicated to check the links you suggest?' Both of these come across as needlessly rude. And accusing someone of block evasion without evidence reads to me a bit like you're casting aspersions.

And to RakdosWitch, calling people pedants and describing their behavior as a 'frothing rage' for attempting to explain policy, even if done in a less than ideal way, is also impolite. If something like this comes up again, I might just recommend something simple for your initial response. Something like 'Yes, I meant Fifth column, and I agree that it should have been clear that is what I meant.' may work. It gets the same point across without insulting someone. Flavor to taste, no need to be quite so formal as I made mine, just trying to communicate the same point a bit more politely.

Everyone here needs to take a step back, I think. I mean no disrespect when I say this, but I feel like both parties here are attacking each other rather than focusing on the article at hand. ShyAndroid (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete for the reasons already given (primarily DICTDEF). I'm not sure a redirect is even needed. I highly doubt people are searching the term "internal enemy" on Wikipedia. That said, I won't strongly oppose a redirect to Fifth column (there, did I use the right link?) if others think it's warranted rather than it being a redlink. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 10:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are substantive sources being offered with which the delete opinions are not engaging: at the moment this looks like a no consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge with Fifth Column. Guys please, be reasonable, these are colloquial expressions which evolved with time. They literally refer to the same concept. A separate page is not needed; a few paragraphs in Fifth Column would suffice. Silvymaro (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment Don’t know why it’s claimed there was no engagement with the sourcing. I had to go to my library to find a digital copy of that source I discussed earlier to demonstrate how weak it was! RakdosWitch (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep - firstly, there are a lot of sources that refer to internal enemies (as opposed to external ones). I mean loads, lots of academic papers, books, newspaper and magazine articles. Second, other than assertions above, I don't think we are forced to accept that it is the same thing as a Fifth column and it seems to me to be perfectly plausible it isn't. What I mean is this; a fifth column is the accusation of a group of people within a country who are cooperating with an enemy. An internal enemy can be that, but can also be an individual or group working against the government or the establishment even when that country isn't at war with anyone. It can even be an idea or inanimate object. There are papers talking about countries struggling against the "internal enemy" of climate change, for example. I accept the page isn't good at the moment, but it seems to me it is possible to construct a page which explains the concept as being a distinct one. JMWt (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge to fifth column. Discounting the !votes because people linked a capitalisation redirect is pedantic and goes against NOTBURO. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to List of star systems within 40–45 light-years. ✗plicit 23:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

WISEPA J195246.66+724000.8

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

Fails WP:NASTRO, SIMBAD show six references which are all catalogues and do not provide significant coverage. 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to List of brown dwarfs where it is listed as WISE 1952+7240, an ordinary field brown dwarf. I couldn't find any significant coverage, just the discovery list. Praemonitus (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect – Per Praemonitus. Svartner (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment: It might not be possible to redirect the article to the list of brown dwarfs since i recently constrained it to contain only notable entries. If redirecting is needed then redirect it to the List of star systems within 40–45 light-years. 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems consensus is redirect, just it still needs a consensus on where it should be redirected to. So far, its either redirect to list of brown dwarfs or List of star systems within 40-45 light-years.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to List of star systems within 40-45 light-years per 21 Andromedae. Procyon117 (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Tanzim Qaedat al-Jihad

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is of a non-notable branch of the Jemaah Islamiya. WP:BEFORE search founds nothing that discusses the subject in depth and not merely mention. The only source does not even discuss the group in depth but of that of its leader, Noordin Mohammad Top. Maybe a merge with the article about the leader would suffice. ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Indonesia. ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Weak keep, but not strongly opposed to a merge. I basically agree with the consensus of the last AfD for this article, where all participants broadly agreed on a weak keep and felt that a merge with Noordin Mohammad Top wasn't a terrible option but that it might not be ideal given that the group continued to exist after his death. That AfD also surfaced quite a few useful sources that indicate some notability (the best probably being ), although unfortunately a couple of the other links are now dead or paywalled. In addition to the sources from the last AfD, these books provide some discussion of the group, and a search of "Al-Qaeda in the Malay Archipelago" on Google Scholar turns up a number of non-trivial mentions from as recently as 2022. To be fair, I'm not able to find anything that goes into a great deal of depth, but I'm inclined to say it's enough. MCE89 (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep per sources above. Given that the group existed after he died I agree with the above that it is not a great merge target. We can have a serviceable article on this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep I've gone ahead and added some sources to the article. There might be some good non-English sources. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Jönköpings AIF

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

Defunct sports club which does not seem to meet WP:GNG. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sport of athletics, and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Looks like it was notable in its day. At worst, merge to Jönköping#Sport 2. Geschichte (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep - being defunct is not a reason for non-notability. I agree with Geschichte that this appears to be notable. Giant Snowman 13:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep - besides defunct. is part of history of Sweden football. Preserve history is one of goal of Wikipedia. Butzen (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep - plenty of good sourcing. I see no rationale for deletion.BabbaQ (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
I can't access the book by Wiger, but it seems to be a 'database' type book with pictures, so it's hard to know how much details the listed pages contain, but the only other non-database secondary source is Nordisk familjebok. reading it it's about 2-3 paragraphs depending on how you define it. 'Plenty' is a stretch. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Nordisk Familjebok is also an encyclopedia, so it may be a tertiary source? In that case, there's only a single possibly sigcov secondary source (The Wiger book), as all the others are either databases/listings or primary sources. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep Sourcing could be a bit better but it does appear to be sourced well enough for inclusion. SportingFlyer T·C 20:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was merge‎ to Interstate compact - very selectively. If the merge isn't carried out within one month, any editor is welcome to BLAR. Owen× ☎ 13:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Bi-State Police

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

This article is an exercise in WP:OR on the topic of bi-state police agencies, which does not appear to be covered in reliable, independent secondary sources. I cannot find non-primary source material on this subject in Google Scholar, Google Books or any other searches. News results turn up only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of police chases across state lines, and search results bring up individual instances (primary sources) of bi-state police cooperation but not secondary coverage of the topic. There's also nothing on the website of the Police Executive Research Forum, a major outlet of secondary research on law enforcement.) In lieu of secondary coverage, the page creator here has cobbled together several examples, based on primary sources (like compact agreements or the agencies' own websites) and sometimes the page creator's own impressions (see "Texhoma doesn't have its official seal posted anywhere, but you can see faint visuals of it on officer uniforms and cars in pictures posted on its official police page on Facebook"). There is no evidence here or elsewhere of the secondary coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. Furthermore, the article fails WP:NOT by failing WP:NOR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Police, and United States of America. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment - Remove the photos, trim the details, add some bullet points or a table, and rename "List of United States law enforcement agencies with multi-state jurisdiction". Magnolia677 (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
In that case it would fail WP:NLIST, since I wasn't even able to find secondary-source discussion of those departments as a group. It would still be an exercise in original research to compose that list. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
These agencies are rare, so the possibility of them being grouped together as a whole wouldn’t be likely. Not to mention, they all operate in different states. What secondary sources could be used? Is their website not a primary source? Is state law not a secondary source? Furthermore, each agency refers to themselves as a bi-state agency. Information relating to the police department is likely to be secondary, because unlike other law enforcement departments they’re part of a bigger organization that involves more than just law enforcement. It has reputable sources. Is there any way to fix the page in your eyes, since you’d love to delete it? LgShai (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
For example, in the DRPA section I gave references from a federal news article, DRPS’s website, and NJ-Pa state law. Is the news article not a secondary source? When writing this, I took notes and examples from PAPD’s main page, so would some information on that page qualify under Original Research too? Most of their references come from the port authority’s website with federal website news articles as secondary references. LgShai (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
State laws AND agency websites are primary sources. They can be used for information but not to establish notability per WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
So state law and agency website references mean nothing unless a random author or news station reports on it. LgShai (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
For purposes of notability, more or less yes. Please review WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and WP:N; there is a lot of good information there to explain how this works. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Not a fan of that rule, but I’ll see what I can do. Most information about these agencies comes from before the times of Internet. Would I have to find an article about them as a whole for this specific page, or would individual articles be good? LgShai (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I’ll be adding secondary sources the next few days, but I will be leaving the primary sources because Wikipedia policy allows primary sources that have been reputably published. Any interpretation will be removed for primary sources, unless I am able to find a secondary source. LgShai (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

My interpretation of WP:NLIST is that the list topic...bi-state/multi-state law enforcement agencies...has to have been referred to as a group. In this example, it has been...these are real things, with a handful of sources referring to these law enforcement agencies as having bi-stare jurisdiction. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't doubt these agencies are real things. But let's look at the secondary sources added by the page creator:

Local news/trade publication stories that focus on the distinct topic of railroad police (, , )
Trade journal op-ed about federal versus state jurisdiction, no mention of police agencies, bi-state or otherwise ()
Conservative think-tank report that examines law enforcement task forces but does not appear to mention bi-state/multi-state agencies ()
CRS report focusing on interstate compacts with a single mention of their implications for police agencies: The Supreme Court, however, held that states could delegate their police power to an interstate compact commission because the Framers of the Constitution intended the Compact Clause to allow the states to resolve interstate problems in diverse and creative ways. ()
Book chapter on interstate compacts that does not mention police. ()
Think tank op-ed on Port Authority that does not mention police. ()

I still don't see any WP:SIGCOV of bi-state/multi-state policy agencies as a group or even as a concept. I think the best we could do here, if we can find some more secondary sourcing along the lines of the CRS report, is to do a very selective merge (to avoid the original research problems in this page) to interstate compact. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

For reference 4, this was the quote I referenced “ The argument for allowing abortions in federal enclaves under exclusive federal jurisdiction is based on the Assimilative Crimes Act and federal prosecutorial discretion. That federal law authorizes federal prosecution when a person commits an act that is a crime in the state where federal land is situated but isn’t a crime under federal law. Federal prosecutors in abortion-rights administrations could decline to bring charges for abortions on federal land within anti-abortion states.“

Im new to editing so apologies for not formatting it correctly. I’m still learning. LgShai (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you agreeing that this satisfies WP:NLIST? I’ve found more reputable articles of these agencies, but the articles are singular. They only include the specific police department. I don’t want to waste any more time deep diving into news articles if this will just be deleted.

Another issue I’m having is that every law enforcement page I’ve visited doesn’t contain an article that specifically includes each police department. They also consist of primary sources rather than secondary sources. “Federal law enforcement in the United States” and “Law enforcement in the United States” pages only give primary sources in their introductions (and most of the article) & contain interpretations with only those primary sources. LgShai (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Reputable secondary sources

LgShai (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Primary sources are acceptable as a source of information, but don’t count toward establishing notability.T v x1 19:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

If that’s the case “Federal law enforcement in the United States” and “Law enforcement in the United States” should lose their notability. They only contain primary sources. Almost every law enforcement page or list only contains primary sources. LgShai (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:WHATABOUTX. At AfD we consider the merits of the article right in front of us. Editors are free to nominate other pages they may consider not to meet standards. Also, remember that notability is not determined solely by what's in the article but the existence of sources (WP:NEXIST). My contention in the nomination and in the source analysis is that there are insufficient qualifying sources for this topic, both in the article and outside it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I have news articles that confirm the jurisdiction of every agency listed. Of If I added these secondary sources, what would cause this page to fail? WP:NLIST? If so, would changing the name clear this error?

The purpose of this article is to bring awareness to this rare occurrence, so it would be nice to get help formatting it to Wikipedia policy for people to read about it. 2600:100D:B014:396E:E993:BAE1:CE33:6F80 (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Secondary sources updated. LgShai (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG.T v x1 19:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge Relatively redudant with interstate compact, and should therefore be merged into that article. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Secondary sources have been added establishing the notability requirements of WP:GNG. WP:OR text removed. LgShai (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@LgShai Can you identify which secondary sources cover the topic of multistate/bistate police agencies overall rather than just talking about single examples of said police agencies? You've added several sources but I do not see any on examination that meet the standard we're looking for. An editor picking and choosing secondary sources that don't cover an overall topic but only discuss individual examples is still an exercise in original research and WP:SYNTH. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Just delete the page bud. You pick a new reason for each solution that anyone comes up with. You obviously just want it deleted. Thanks. Good bye. LgShai (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to List of association football clubs in Northern Ireland. ✗plicit 23:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Kilbride Swifts F.C.

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

Non-notable amateur sports team. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CLUB. Article on same topic was previously deleted (following 2009 AfD which covered a number of clubs playing in regional junior/intermediate/amateur leagues). Article has been tagged for notability/refs since 2012 and for attention since 2022. It has been barely a 30-word sub-stub in all that time. In my own attempt to expand the article (and as part of WP:BEFORE) I cannot find sufficient sources to confirm if the club still exists. All I can find are scarce passing mentions in hyper-local sources in directory-style entries, decade-old ROTM match reports (or two decades for that matter), or this article from nearly 25 years ago about a head butt incident. I cannot find ANY sources which deal with the subject as a primary topic. I can't even find poor or passing mentions to even establish the basic facts (where the club is/was based, when it was formed, if it still exists, if/when it closed, etc). Not even primary ones (no website, no Twitter, no Facebook, nothing). If there aren't sufficient sources to write more than 50 words about this topic, how can we possibly state that GNG is met? Guliolopez (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to List of association football clubs in Northern Ireland – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment. While I had considered a possible AtD target like that, the club is not mentioned in the proposed target list. And, as above, I cannot find sufficient sources to determine whether or where to include it in that list(?) Where would we include the subject club on that list? Guliolopez (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
It is not mentioned because it was last active in 2012, but the redirection to the club list is appropriate. Svartner (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi. And thanks. RE: "redirection to the club list is appropriate". My reading of the applicable convention is that the subject of the redirected title should, at the very least, be mentioned at the target. I personally don't know where it would/could be listed. RE: "it was last active in 2012". What's that date based upon? Per one of the few sources available, it was seemingly active in 2012. As above, I can find no sources to establish if that was the "last" date of activity. If there was a reliable/verifiable ref confirming a date of last activity (or demise) then, at the very least, we could include in the "defunct clubs" section of the proposed target... Guliolopez (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 13:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

SEI Club

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

Wholly promotional, failing neutrality and notability standards. Fails WP:ORG. Dubious sources with no editorial oversight and promotional tone. For example, the GQ article says, "the company offers something many have never considered: a coaching system that refines their approach to dating and relationships." The Businessworld article claims, "SEI Club's success is solely because of its exhaustive screening process and high knockback rate." Junbeesh (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United States of America, and Florida. Junbeesh (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Shold the press only be negative? why does positive content equate a lack of notability? Are things in this world never "good"? In some cases the "truth" might in fact be positive. 216.15.110.195 (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
What negative press are you seeing? It's all positive, or neutral. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
weak keep: The Yahoo article is fine, GQ doesn't have a listed author... I found this , contributor piece but it was "reviewed by editorial staff" so I suppose it's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
The Yahoo article is an interview with their Senior Matchmaker, featuring his direct quotes and WW is straight puffery. Junbeesh (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
The other two sources are fine I think. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. gq.co.za and businessworld are usually unmarked paid placement and goofy puffery, with no authors indicated. Yahoo Life is surprisingly written by an actual journalist - usually Yahoo is all redirects to blogs and other junk these days. Most of the Yahoo piece is just uncritical quotes from an interview; not sure that's going to meet the WP:ORG requirement for independence. Unclear on the Dating News site, seems okay. I removed several flat-out blackhat paid placements. Doing a search reveals a tremendous amount of paid placement and vanity publications, including some creepy ones. Also, PR from our friends at "First North Marketing". Overall, just not enough to be notable and I can't get to WP:ORG.Sam Kuru (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: Yahoo Life is basically the only usable source here. GQ and BusinessWorld lacks byline and I have no opinion on Dating News site. That being said, I don’t think that the subject has the significant coverage need for organisation. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This article was created by a recently-identified sock of a long-blocked spam sock. I would usually G5 this, but I've voted in the AFD. See . Sam Kuru (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was Withdrawn‎ based on Beannie's new sourcing and there being no outstanding delete !votes. FOARP (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Cesare Toraldo

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

Mass created article by Lugnuts. Fails WP:NSPORT due to the lack of any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources being cited in the article (or the corresponding IT WP article) or found in my WP:BEFORE search.

De'prodded by BeannieFan11 with the comment "being recipient of the highest honor for Italian sportspeople as well as a seven-time world championship medalist indicates notability". With all due respect to Beannie, none of this is a reason to keep this article within our PAGs. The Golden Collar is an award given out to roughly a hundred or more people each year, with coverage of it typically just being a listing of all the names (see, e.g., this 2017 report from the Italian Olympic Committee's website) so there's no reason to believe it would have generated significant coverage, particularly since Toraldo received it in 2019 and if it had generated such coverage, it would be available online.

As for being a "seven-time world championship medalist" this is only if you count team events. Toraldo does not inherent the notability of his team. FOARP (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Olympics, and Italy. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 14:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:Delete: My research shows him mentioned in passing, but nothing specifically about him that seems like it'd count as significant coverage--even if it didn't seem mostly routine. I didn't take a too-deep look into Italian-language sources, but I did try my best to make sure I wasn't overlooking anything obvious. They didn't seem to have anything of note to say either. ShyAndroid (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC) Keep, I think? I can't read the sources that have been introduced by @BeanieFan11:, so this isn't a super sure response, but I think that it seems like enough from a purely 'number of sources' perspective. I tried my best, but I'm glad someone looked a little harder than I did at Italian-language coverage. ShyAndroid (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Highly accomplished (with numerous world championship medals and the highest honor for sportspeople in Italy) and passes WP:GNG, see for example the two-column "Toraldo, the race for gold" from l'Unita, "Toraldo makes you dream" from Il Piccolo di Trieste, "Toraldo wins in swimming" from the same, "Two birds with one stone" from Multisport Magazine, and even modern coverage such as "Cesare Toraldo, pentathlete in the myth, but without victory" from il Fatto Nisseno. There's also almost certainly going to be further coverage in other Italian newspapers of the time. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep: The sources provided by BeanieFan11 show sufficient coverage of the subject to meet GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @ShyAndroid: in case they would like to change their !vote. JTtheOG (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was Keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure)‎ Jpatokal (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Southwest Airlines Flight 1380

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

Based on run-of-the-mill aviation accidents, engine failures became a widespread cause for aviation incidents and accidents, including ones that resulted in diversions and emergency landings. While the aircraft was substantially damaged, and that one person was killed, though tragic, the cause of this accident is run-of-the-mill. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 13:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, United States of America, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 13:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep a significant accident, described in a well-written and comprehensive article. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep by the strongest means possible – I'm genuinely surprised by this nomination and I'm puzzled as to whether a WP:BEFORE search was conducted. To address all points:
- Based on run-of-the-mill aviation accidents, engine failures became a widespread cause for aviation incidents and accidents, including ones that resulted in diversions and emergency landings. While the aircraft was substantially damaged, and that one person was killed, though tragic, the cause of this accident is run-of-the-mill.
  - I don't necessarily want to use an argument not based on policy but I think in this case I have to. Using the logic given, we would practically have to delete more than three quarters of aviation occurrences on Wikipedia since they're practically "run-of-the-mill". Hijackings are common, CFITs are common, pilot error is common, maintenance/poor design issues are common, icing is common, training issues are common, etc... You get the point. It is simply ridiculous to suggest that we should delete an article simply because the cause is "routine".
  - We don't determine an event's notability simply based on whether the cause is common. We look at what coverage is available and whether or not the event results in lasting effects.
Additionally, a basic Google search and one on Google Scholar already brings up numerous news articles that provide significant and in-depth continued coverage of the event and was the subject of case studies:^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11] Some that discuss the lasting effects:^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15] It's pretty clear that this passes WP:GNG, WP:NEVENT, WP:EVENTCRIT, with significant, in-depth, and continued coverage of the accident existing, among with numerous case studies, and demonstrated lasting effects. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The articles were not properly bundled. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 20:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Why have you addied this note here? Doesn't each proposal have to be judged on its own merits? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Admin note: Please properly bundle these Articles @TG-article or they will not be considered as part of the nomination. Star Mississippi 22:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
This nomination has already been posted and has attracted significant response. Is it now going to change into something with wider scope? This seems somewhat out of process. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Bundling is allowed, but only if done properly. That has not been done here, and would not be closed as a bundle when a closer reviews the discussion. I have no opinion on whether they have a similar merit as I have not asssessed any of them Star Mississippi 22:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Are those other proposals part of this one or not? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
At the moment they have not been properly bundled as described in WP:MULTIAFD. I'm not sure what @TG-article's plans are for how to proceed, but notice one article has the tag and the other does not. Star Mississippi 22:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
It's all very confusing. I'm surprised the editor is permitted to add these now. I reverted once already, but they were just re-added, with no edit summary explanation. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment: @Martinevans123 & @Star Mississippi. The Nominator has again been blocked for a third time for a week so I don't think you guys will really get what you're needing from the Nominator right now. Just noting. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Speedy Keep I have absolutely no idea why this shouldn't be kept. This has WP:SIGCOV and definitely fulfills WP:GNG. The original reasoning for this nomination is also deeply flawed. Almost every major aviation incident has a ""run-of-the-mill"" cause. Therefore, the effects of said incident should be gauged on its lasting effects. Ultimately, nominating this for deletion is a complete waste of people's time and has deleterious effects on the quality of this website. LizardDoggos (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

— LizardDoggos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 22:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I'm just getting started being active in editing Wikipedia. Good for keeping watch about SPAs! LizardDoggos (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep. Aviationwikiflight has already presented the evidence needed to keep. Plus, the article was also subject to an episode on Air Crash Investigation. I'm starting to think, based on the nominator's other recent nominations (DL89, SQ321), that they have a problem with doing their WP:BEFORE research, and should stop nominating articles for deletion for a while. S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 01:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep - this is the only accidental passenger death on a major US airline since 2009. 4300streetcar (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you quite sure about that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep: Per above. Has WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG, definately has lasting effects. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 18:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep per above, notability is clear. Skyshiftertalk 21:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

keep The accident had consequences wrt maintenance procudres and the like. It wasn't jsut an "out of the blue" incident. Mangoe (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Extremely Strong Keep – This is the closest I can say to speedy keep as I can because this AfD (somehow) doesn't qualify under speed keep. Anyway, article very clearly meets the general notability guideline for articles and passes the requirements for continued coverage and lasting effects (as shown by editors above). A simple Google search brings up dozens of articles months after the accident. @TG-article: Please, before you nominate any more articles for deletion, familiarize yourself with the policies mentioned ahove, especially what to do before an AfD and the notabilty for events. Ignoring the concerns of editors in this AfD (as well as two other AfDs) is starting to come off as disruptive. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. Has significant coverage, which is what is important here. Fulmard (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep, incident had strong coverage and has had lasting implications on the aviation industry in the united states. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Haag, Matthew; Salam, Maya (20 April 2018). "On Southwest 1380, Confusion and Distraction as Oxygen Masks Dropped". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
Zhang, Benjamin (20 April 2018). "Here's what happened on the fatal Southwest Airlines flight". Business Insider. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
Healy, Jack; Hauser, Christine (18 April 2018). "Inside Southwest Flight 1380, 20 Minutes of Chaos and Terror". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
Negroni, Christine (19 April 2018). "Engine on Southwest Jet Not the Only One to Develop Cracks". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
Levin, Alan (19 April 2018). "Metal Weakness in Southwest Jet Tests Limits of Safety Inspections". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
"Southwest Flight 1380: What Happened Onboard". The Wall Street Journal. 26 April 2018. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
Koenig, David; Lauer, Claudia (14 November 2018). "Hearing reveals chilling details of fatal Southwest flight". The Associated Press. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
Goyer, Isabel (13 December 2019). "Engine Explosion Cause Found: NTSB Final Report On Southwest Airlines Flight 1380". Plane & Pilot Magazine. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
C. Kemp, Alexandra; Dalal, Jahnavi; Tassawar, Usama; Lu, Chien-Tsung (1 January 2021). "Safety Analysis of Uncontained Engine Failure-Southwest Airlines Flight 1380". International Journal of Crisis Management. 11 (1). doi:10.6929/IJCM.202101_11(1).0002. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
Auxier, Eric (24 April 2021). "Southwest Flight 1380: Anatomy of an Inflight Emergency". Airways News. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
"Southwest 1380 Archives". Flight Safety Foundation. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
Josephs, Leslie (19 November 2019). "Boeing commits to NTSB safety fixes on thousands of 737 NG jets after deadly Southwest engine blast". CNBC. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
Pimentel, Dan (22 November 2019). "NTSB Issues Seven Recommendations After SWA 1380 Accident". Flying. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
Broderick, Sean (20 July 2023). "Boeing Completes 737NG Nacelle Redesign Work | Aviation Week Network". Aviation Week. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
Velani, Bhavya (22 July 2023). "Boeing Finishes Redesign of 737NG Nacelles After Southwest Engine Blowouts". Aviation A2Z. Retrieved 23 January 2025.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Yvon Mariolle

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

Mass created article by Lugnuts. Fails WP:NSPORTS due to lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Only claim to notability is exactly the kind of participation-based notability claim based on wide-sweeping databases that WP:NSPORT2022 deprecated. Fails WP:NBOX since they were never ranked in the world-wide top ten.

Prod removed by BeannieFan11 with the comment "the source I added contains a story on him, although inaccessible - further, the Olympedia picture is captioned "Champion de France" - a national boxing champion in France absolutely would have coverage in newspapers of the day, and that a search of "'Yvon Mariolle' boxeur" still brings up passing mentions to this day indicates he is virtually certain to have been a notable figure". With the maximum respect for Beannie, a story that no-one can access in which the only thing we know is that possibly the name "Yvon Mariolle" is mentioned, is not a credible claim that significant coverage exists in this case. More is needed for a WP:NEXIST pass than pointing to a source you cannot read. If Mariolle had ever been French champion - and if this was actually something signficant enough to confer notability - this would be mentioned somewhere other than Olympedia.

Additionally the two-paragraph story about the death of Yvon Mariolle's twin brother Marcel is obviously not significant coverage of Yvon. FOARP (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Olympics, and France. FOARP (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. The Boxing Business article isn't a case of "there may possibly be coverage of him" – we know, for a fact, that there's coverage of him there. We know this as Google Books gives a snippet view showing it talks about him on multiple pages and one quote talks about him and says something like "Let's examine his story" – and then it goes into his background. We only get small snippets of the story, but from what we do see, it talks about how he got into the sport, how he then became French national champion in 1965 and retained his title in 1966, and then continues talking about him, but I can't read further than that. Additionally, while the story on his brother is not significant coverage of him, it does indicate his significance (translated): "Marcel was none other than the twin brother of Yvon Mariolle, another boxer from the great era of the noble art of Orléans, selected for the Olympic Games in Mexico in 1968, who had been unable to get into the ring and defend his chances because of a toothache. Marcel, on the night of March 21 to 22, joined Yvon, who had also passed away, in the paradise of champions." The story would not speak so highly of him if he was an insignificant boxer. Given that we know there was at least SIGCOV in Boxing Business, know he was multi-time French national champion, and know that he was still spoken of highly in recent years, and no French newspaper archives were searched ... this should be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
“No French newspaper archives were searched” - this is not true. All archives indexed by Google are searched in a Google search, and this includes the French-language publications indexed by Google. I didn’t mention it, but I also looked at Internet Archive which includes a substantial corpus of French newspapers including Paris Match, and found nothing but passing mentions. L'Equipe also have a photo archive which returns no results for Mariolle. FOARP (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
A Google search would not find any 1960s French newspapers as far as I'm aware. Mariolle seems to be a very important figure, being three-time national champion and being sent to nearly a dozen international competitions (see this, the city of Orleans writing an article about boxing, "one of the main combat sports making headlines [in France]," and it discusses a program for a fight he was in). Do you really think that not a single newspaper in France would cover their national boxing championships, even when we have sources mentioning it was "one of the main sports making the headlines"? That would be an absolutely ludicrous assumption! I looked at the Internet Archive's "substantial" collection of French newspaper archives and it returned two results from the 1970s (he was champion in the 1960s), but literally American newspapers have many more mentions of him. That the U.S. would cover France's boxing champion more than France does itself is also an insane idea. Further, here's a forum where someone recalls spending "hundreds of hours in the car listening [I presume on the radio?] to the stories of a boxer of the time ... Yvon Mariolle." We know for a fact that there's SIGCOV in Boxing Business, and he still receives passing mentions to this day, such as the story I mentioned above saying that Marcel was "none other than the brother of Yvon" and calling him one of the "champions" of the "great era" of the sport in France. I don't usually say this, but I am 100% sure he is notable. I guarantee it. This should be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Sorry but you're making a mountain out of a molehill here.

"A Google search would not find any 1960s French newspapers as far as I'm aware" - Here's what you get for a search for Daniel Robin (the French Wrestler who got silver in 1968). Hits include L'Equipe and Le Monde.

"Do you really think that not a single newspaper in France would cover their national boxing championships" - Since when were passing mentions in match reports capable of sustaining notability?

"We know for a fact that there's SIGCOV in Boxing Business" - We do not in fact know this. FOARP (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Le Monde is the only source from the 1960s that Google brings up (the L'Equipe result doesn't appear to be from then). Since when were passing mentions in match reports capable of sustaining notability? – I never said that, but you seemed to be implying that the two results on the Internet Archive was everything there was to be found; let me re-phrase it: Do you really think that not a single newspaper in France would cover their national boxing championships more than a passing mention, when reliable sources state that it was very frequently featured in the headlines? As for Boxing Business, the odds of a multi-page story on him that says 'let's examine his story' and then goes on about details such as how he started boxing, how he won national championships, then continuing with more details on his boxing career, not being significant coverage is next to nil. We need to use common sense. When very few relevant sources were searched, we know there is a source that is virtually certain to be significant coverage, we know that he was very highly accomplished and boxing was a headline-level of importance topic, we know he still to this day gets mentions as a "champion" from the "great era" of French boxing, and even have people describing having listened to "hundreds" of hours of some type of coverage of him, everything points to him having been a notable boxer. This is ridiculous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Do you really think that not a single newspaper in France would cover their national boxing championships more than a passing mention - whether they would or not is irrelevant. The article is not about the championship. Also, whilst we're at it, it's worth noting that Boxing Business appears to have been a highly-opinionated book that included an entire chapter praising the Soviet Union (that's a review from a French newspaper, archived by Google), so I'm not so sure about it being an entirely reliable source. Le Monde apparently has quite good archives covering the 1960's and 70's, all indexed by Google, but they don't mention Yvon Mariolle. FOARP (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
The book was written by Roland Passevant, a notable sports and political journalist who worked for Agence France-Presse and was the head sports editor for multiple newspapers, as well as a recipient of the Legion of Honour. The review you cite notes how Passevant was courageous and informed ... [The book an] impressive document always, unbearable sometimes; [the] testimony of a man rich in journalistic experience ... Clearly, Roland Passevant knows what he is talking about and spares no one... – and the entire chapter praising the Soviet Union is, according to the source, rather praising Soviet boxing. I don't see why it wouldn't be reliable. Naturally, an in-depth article talking about the championship would have to talk about the champion; it'd be shocking for anyone to read a headline feature story about a sports championship and find that there's no content at all about the winner! Yes, Le Monde – one single newspaper – may be archived; but there were dozens if not hundreds of newspapers that could have covered him. Common sense would indicate that there's further coverage when we already have one piece of SIGCOV and very few of the sources from the time are accessible, given that we know the sport was often in the headlines and he was among the best. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
"he was among the best" - WP:NBOX is the Boxing project's definition of what "amongst the best" means in this field, and Mariolle doesn't meet it.

"Yes, Le Monde – one single newspaper – may be archived" - They covered Alphonse Hallimi's career and death. L'Humanite also has an archive that goes that far back, and covered Alphonse Hallimi, but they didn't mention Yvon Mariolle.

Anyway, this is turning in to a "Beanie and FOARP" show, so I'll give it a rest. FOARP (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Boxing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment This article is about a boxer who lost his first, and only, bout at the Olympics. He appears to fail WP:ANYBIO and definitely fails WP:NBOX. I can't tell if Boxing Business provides significant independent coverage but even if it did WP:GNG is generally assumed to require multiple sources. I'm not voting to delete in the hopes that additional sources can be found. If they are, please let me know so I can look at them. Papaursa (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep I have found and added some sources and info. This boxer won French championships in 1965 and 1968, according to the FFB . This source also has info about his championships. I agree with BeanieFan11 that there would have been coverage in the French press. I am not finding digitised French newspapers from the relevant period. If anyone knows of it, please let me know. (The digitised newspapers I have found are this on the Bibliothèque nationale de France website, and this on the FranceArchives website. From what I can see, all but a few titles are not digitised beyond 1940, and most stop well before that. It also doesn't seem possible to search all titles by text, as it is with Newspapers.com, the British Newspaper Archive, or Trove.) Google search doesn't access all digitised French newspapers, and the user-contributed Internet Archive doesn't yet have many titles either (the link provided by FOARP actually goes to an Argentinian Spanish-language newspaper). As BeanieFan11 pointed out, there is also coverage of Yvon Mariolle's matches in North American and British newspapers, not surprisingly focused on his local opponents. He clearly does not meet WP:NBOX, but with the current sources, I believe he meets WP:BASIC, and access to French sources published between 1965 and 2000 would no doubt provide more coverage. If I find more, I'll add it. (Papaursa, you may like to consider those I have added.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
The first source is a database, the second an interview/extended quote, neither of these are IRS Sigcov for someone who is an WP:NBOX fail. FOARP (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
The first source is official evidence that he did indeed win French championships, which you questioned in your nomination. The second source includes an interview, but is not just an interview. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Without the interview/quote it's a brief paragraph - not WP:SIGCOV. The paragraph says in total:

"Despite his power and remarkable hooks, Yvon Mariolle (left) did not achieve his dream in Mexico: to win the Olympic title. As soon as he entered the competition, the Orleanais lost by throwing in the towel in the second round against the Hungarian Itsvan Gali. Thanks to a quest organized by his work colleagues, Raymond Petit, his teacher in Orleans, nevertheless made the trip to Mexico to support him but that was not enough."
We already have a standard for judging whether, in the absence of SIGCOV being found, we might still decide that there's SIGCOV out there that we haven't found for boxers - it's WP:NBOX, which this guy doesn't pass. FOARP (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
We already have a standard for judging whether, in the absence of SIGCOV being found, we might still decide that there's SIGCOV out there that we haven't found for boxers - it's WP:NBOX, which this guy doesn't pass. – NBOX is not the standard / requirement for notability, and you, of all people, should know this. You don't need to meet an excessively strict SNG with no power anyways to be able to consider the possibility of SIGCOV existing that we haven't found. It's exceedingly obvious that Mariolle would have been covered substantially. In addition, I don't know why you keep saying that no SIGCOV has been found: Boxing Business is virtually guaranteed to have significant coverage of him by all indications. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
I found this does it count as SIGCOV? It says he was "three times French Welterweight Champion and holder of ten selections as an International including the Olympic Games in Mexico in 1968." Lookslikely (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Ooops. I see it is already mentioned. My error. Anyway if you're three time national champ in a big country like France and you box internationally 10 times including at an Olympics that seems pretty worthy of note to me so I vote Keep. Lookslikely (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment I looked at the sources mentioned and I'm not convinced any of them provide significant coverage. There likely was coverage of his national titles, but whether it was significant or just reporting of results I can't tell. Multiple national amateur titles is certainly an achievement, though it fails WP:NBOX, and many successful people have had their articles deleted from WP. I don't think the keep votes have really met the burden of proof that shows WP notability has been met, but I also don't feel that the claim has no merit. Therefore, I feel neutral enough to abstain from voting. Papaursa (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's what NBOX used to look like before WP:NSPORTS2022 removed all of the participation criteria. None of the individual sport guidelines have been updated with replacement criteria though so we're pretty much just left with skeletonized guidelines that offer unhelpful advice like likely to be notable if they've been inducted into the hall of fame. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

So, basically, "let's just ignore the massive consensus in WP:NSPORTS2022"? FOARP (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

No, let's follow WP:NEXIST: "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." [my emphasis]. We are asserting that it is likely that WP:SIGCOV can be found for a multiple national champion and Olympics contender, with access to French 1960s publications. As they are not available online, more time should be allowed than the period of an AfD, especially since it was not tagged for citations needed prior to being nominated for deletion. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Editors above have cited failing NBOX as a deletion rationale, which is clearly not appropriate. All NSPORTS2022 did was remove participation criteria. There was no individual discussion about the merits of NBOX. It's not a reliable predictor of baseline boxing notability (it's overly strict right now). The only reason the top ten ranking is still there is because it was the only bullet point that wasn't participation-based. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The notability of all of Lugnuts articles has been challenged for a long time. Similarly “time passes” is not some point years or decades in the future, otherwise there would not ever be any need to demonstrate notability. FOARP (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep - "The notability of all of Lugnuts articles has been challenged for a long time" - to state the bleeding obvious, notability is the property of an article's subject, not of its creator. Lugnuts covered all Olympians and even within the absurd straitjacket of WP:NSPORTS2022 quite a few of them are notable. This is not - or should not be - a personally-driven anti-Lugnuts crusade. As for Mariolle, see this Google books snippet extract from "Boxing Business", page 236: "... Yvon Mariolle , emprisonné en décembre 1972 , pour vol , recel et association de malfaiteurs . Il est boxeur en activité . Il a vingt - six ans . Examinons son cas . Yvon Mariolle , le 13 juin 1970 , à Grenoble , affronte le champion ..." In other words, he was sent to prison for theft etc in Dec 1972, and Passevant proceeds to discuss him in further detail - "Examinons son cas" - although since this is a snippet that further detail is not on Google books. There is thus definitely further information in the book, and it is also inconceivable that Mariolle's fall from grace / trial / imprisonment were not covered in the French press, which as Rebecca Green points out, is unavailable, not because there is no coverage in it but because it has not been digitised for the relevant decades. Ingratis (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 14:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Ethan H. D.

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

No notable independent wrestler. No in deep coverage from third party sources, just some passing mentions which are WP:ROUTINE. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Wrestling, and Illinois. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete No reliable sources aside from wrestling databases and blogs. Even then, coverage isn't substantial- just mentions that he fought at an event or the fact that he tried out for the WWE. Ultimately, not notable. Jordano^5³ 14:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: No indication of notability for this indie professional wrestler JTtheOG (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. The one proposed merge ATD lacks consensus. Sandstein 22:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Gandalf Big Naturals

AfDs for this article:

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

User:Urve raised a concern that the subject is not notable at the DYK nom, and I rather agree. Of the sources present, only the first two (Autostraddle and The Mary Sue) provide significant coverage, and neither seem WP:REPUTABLE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Popular culture, and Internet. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment The Mary Sue is considered reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. "Original reporting is reliable and original blogging may be appropriate for editorial/opinions, but reblogged content is not." I am uncertain of Autostraddle's reliability, but it seems to fall under PRIMARY since it's an interview with the creator. I'd say both are reputable enough as far as sources go, but only one really seems to count as SIGCOV here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Pokelego999 the Mary Sue source in question, which includes snippets such as "Gandalf was gifted some massive bananaramadonglehaumers", "Ever since then, Gandalf has been out there shakin’ them thangs for the greater good, and we couldn’t be prouder of him. Not only is this supremely swaggy of him as leader of the wizard community, it’s also aesthetically cool as all hell., and "Godspeed, you beautiful, braless bitch. Godspeed.", seems to fall firmly on the side of "original blogging", which is only "appropriate for editorial/opinions", not notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Editorials and opinions are perfectly valid for notability, though? The author is also a member of the site's staff, and not a random blogger, so this wouldn't fall under Wikipedia:BLOG either. I doubt this article is notable either way, but I wouldn't discredit the Mary Sue source entirely. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete or redirect (neutral on target). I agree with Pokelego999 here. The source doesn't count towards notability given it's mostly commentary from the creator. I might grant that it could be mentioned as a meme somewhere, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete for now. If a good redirect/merge target is found that can contain the info without falling into Wikipedia:UNDUE territory, I'd be willing to go with that, but for now the subject is just non-notable, even with the sources discussed above. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete or redirect if a decent target is found. As I expressed at DYK, I'm not seeing the requisite amount of substantial, secondary coverage to justify a standalone article. I am somewhat surprised that we don't have a standalone list of Tumblr memes / phenomena article (pinging Theleekycauldron and Generalissima since you might be interested in incorporating some of this article into such a list?); if this is deleted, it can be refunded to redirect there for incorporation and attribution. Urve (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge with Gandalf#Adaptations: and add some of the sources on the page (or https://www.next-stage.fr/2025/01/baldurs-gate-3-developpeur-fete-son-succes-mod-ose-la-raison-est-surprenante.html or https://www.themarysue.com/the-only-wizard-i-want-to-hear-about-right-now-is-gandalf-s-big-naturals/ or https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/guides/what-in-gods-name-is-gandalf-big-naturals-the-surreal-photoshop-lotr-meme-explained or https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/meme-review/kym-review-top-10-lewd-memes-of-2022-that-will-get-you-bonked) -Mushy Yank. 09:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems extremely dubious that covering this meme at that article would be due. It might be a good idea to cover this at some article about The Lord of the Rings memes alongside e.g. They're Taking the Hobbits to Isengard and Figwit. TompaDompa (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  It seems extremely dubious that covering this meme at that article would be due.> And why is that? Not a whole section, a short sentence. + Supporting the good idea you mentioned! -Mushy Yank. 10:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  Because An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. per WP:PROPORTION. Based on that criterion, the relative importance of this meme to the overarching topic of Gandalf is minuscule, and while I haven't conducted any kind of analysis of the coverage in the sources, I reckon that the relative weight placed upon this meme by the sources compared to e.g. Ian McKellen's portrayal of Gandalf is probably likewise pretty much a rounding error. That is to say that if we devote (say) twenty sentences to McKellen's portrayal and one sentence to the meme, we're probably over-emphasizing the meme in relative terms. TompaDompa (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  May I beg to differ? It seems the meme can be covered proportionally according to what it is and that is my point ("should not be given undue weight" does not equal "should not be mentioned at all", in general nor in the present case). Talk page exchanges and normal editing can make sure it is. And such strict proportionality will be quite difficult to decide (let alone, to control), anyway (e.g. x sentences for IMcK's portrayal, y (= how many x?) sentences for Tolkien's depiction, etc). [to clarify, editing/talk can help control/decide weight given to aspects of a subject but not with such a mathematical precision] But again, the other solution you suggest is also good. -Mushy Yank. 11:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  
  I also agree that this seems a bit Wikipedia:UNDUE. If the meme was something huge to the extent of something like Bowsette or something, I could see an argument for including it, but given that this meme has maybe two sources at best that aren't trivial, and this is an article about one of the most iconic characters of all time, including this meme doesn't seem proportional to how the article covers its content, especially since McKellen's incarnation of Gandalf is a relatively small part of the article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Know Your Meme is not a reliable source, so it wouldn't be very helpful here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 13:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Use all the other sources, then. (Staff articles on entertainment topics (not BLP nor contentious ones) have been found more or less acceptable as opinion pieces by certain users in one of the many threads dedicated to the site at the RSNb). -Mushy Yank. 14:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
The site is still unreliable at Wikipedia:KNOWYOURMEME in all use cases, and the discussion itself you've linked seems to be overwhelmingly negative toward its use, even in terms of its staff articles. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Again, use all the other sources, then. -Mushy Yank. 16:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete as not notable and WP:UNDUE for a merge anywhere. BD2412 T 19:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was procedural close. An AFD discussion that started with a keep opinion from the nominator; discussed earlier and closed as redirect, ongoing revert cycle regarding whether it should be a redirect. This is too messy; the correct venue would be to take the first AFD discussion up at WP:DRV. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

DYCL-TV

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

Keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Broadcast media says: "Licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios and/or either rebroadcasts multiple services."

Wc2025 (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

John Cravens

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

I can't see how this university registrar is notable. Registrar is not an inherently noteworthy position, even at a large university, and the article is sourced only to primary sources (references 1-2), an apparently self-published essay (reference 3), and an obituary (reference 4). The essay itself is sourced mostly to the same primary sources (family papers) and various obituaries. Essentially no secondary coverage of this individual, fails WP:NACADEMIC. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Indiana. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment Seems like he might pass WP:GNG notability. He had coverage in Indiana newspapers across his life (listed some below). It also looks like he was part of the state legislature from 1899 to 1903. I'm not sure which positions he held, other than as Democratic representative for Monroe and Brown (County?) starting in 1899. - Whisperjanes (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep per WP:NPOL as a member of his state legislature. I added this to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep per Eppstein findings (thanks!). I do think that a building being named for an employee (non-donor) at a major university, while not in any specific guideline, generally suggests that notability will be found if one searches far enough. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep for sufficient sources. Also agree with Eppstein. Jaireeodell (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 14:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

List of Kalyeserye episodes

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

I have a regretting to nominate this but the source was all dead links due to Conflict of TVJ and TAPE Inc.. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Philippines. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep classic case of MOS:TVSPLIT. More than 400+ episodes and the list of more than 300k bytes breaking the 80k bytes threshold for splitting. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
@Miminity All of the references or let's say half of the references are from YT primary sources are dead. So, there's no way to retrieve some videos from a dead link. ROY is WAR Talk! 13:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The List of Kalyeserye § References § Work cited all of them are dead links. And other ref was dead too. ROY is WAR Talk! 13:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

It already passes MOS:TVSPLIT, Per WP:NOTCLEANUP, we cannot delete it base on that rationale alone. Plus we cannot merge it back to the parent article as 300k+ bytes is large enough. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. WP:DEADLINK is not a reason to delete, but if sources are the episodes themselves, it's a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and is a problem. Kalyeserye is not a TV show but a segment of one. The closest analogy is if there's a separate list of Weekend Update "episodes", and we don't do that. There maybe WP:RS about this somewhere; if that's presented, I'd reconsider. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete Per Howard the Duck; a lot of these Filipino TV articles depend on network PR and circular fanlinks rather than any external discussion of the 'shows' themselves, and in this case it's a show within a show that by design isn't meant to be taken seriously, but the 'network stans' have turned the space into just as big a no-go zone as kid's show articles here. Articles based on WP:PRIMARY sources (here to what's now a dead Facebook page); sorry your show is in a deep kind of rights hell but this article is a massive PRIMARY violation (the map alone is unsourced fanon that would even be questioned on a Fandom site and nobody cares about your show hashtags) and should have been sanctioned long ago. Nate • (chatter) 20:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete grave abuse of non-independent and primary sources, and may lean towards WP:FANCRUFT. Enough of Philippine showbiz fandom-inspired articles like this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete, also per above. In addition, the existence of the "AlDub Hashtag" column in the episode tables ultimately leans to WP:FANCRUFT. Nobody cares what the hashtag was for that episode besides AlDub fans. That goes the same for those "MOTD" in the synopsis of each episode. AstrooKai (Talk) 07:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per above. Borgenland (talk) 09:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete as WP:FANCRUFT slop which adds little to the show's notability. This would've been a better fit in the Eat Bulaga Fandom wiki but not here. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per above. (Just make sure there aren't any fans around singing that Diana Ross song when it happens.) --- Tito Pao (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was speedy deleted by JBW. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Bhalla (name)‌

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

Not notable, created by a sockpuppet DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as per WP:SOCK guidelines. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 10:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan, India, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Speedy delete G5, the page creator User:Tested account has now been blocked as a sockpuppet. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 14:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Matthew Bell (lawyer)

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

Non-notable lawyer. Plenty of sources were added to the article, but most of them only mention the subject in passing (or not at all). Notability is clearly lacking, and there isn't any evidence that subject warrants a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, United States of America, and Texas. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

In the ever-growing subject matter of export controls & sanctions. Mr. Bell is a legend. His cases with Weatherford and ZTE were record breaking and he managed a political firestorm that put ZTE as the bargaining chip in the original start of the Trump Trade war. He is one of the best speakers I have ever seen and is connected to nearly everyone in this area of law. Instead of the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon people in the legal & compliance world joke about the 6 degrees of Matt Bell and you usually only need 1 or 2 degrees to connect to him. While I am new the Wikipedia process, I was pleased to see he had an article pop up on here. He has been quoted in numerous news stories and articles that might need to be added as I read more about notability. 64.92.63.94 (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

"Legends" aren't quite the level of sourcing we need, does he have articles written about him directly? Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Matt Bell – FTI Consulting - Vanguard Law Magazine 64.92.63.94 (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: PROMO for a lawyer. The sources are more about the legal cases than the individual, I can't find sourcing strictly about the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete as self-promotional content without notability --Loewstisch (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Comments: Call me shocked, but the IP's comments are true! I'm literally 2 degrees of separation on LinkedIn from an attorney/friend who's close enough to me that I attended and spoke up at his wedding and reception. (I have a self-imposed restriction on !voting in similar situations.) I'm not sure he's notable, but he is well-connected. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Hilary Mercer

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

Notability is not inherited from the company. Fails WP:GNG. Sources are not independent of the subject and rely on shallow coverage, a profile and a BIC magazine article dominated by quotes from her. Lacks significant depth beyond passing mentions in secondary reliable sources. Junbeesh (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Junbeesh (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Engineering, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

YoungLA

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Profile listing, non-critical blog, Instagram post, and routine coverage. Lacks significant in-depth secondary sources. Junbeesh (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United States of America, and California. Junbeesh (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Nothing to establish WP:ORGCRIT here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 14:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Kanel Joseph

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

Fails WP:ENT. A YouTuber with no significant coverage beyond passing mentions and basic profiles. One minor controversy, but insufficient to establish lasting notability. Junbeesh (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United States of America, and Florida. Junbeesh (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Not quite the level of coverage we need ... The first source used in the article isn't aboot this person either. We don't have much left to go on. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC) .

Delete - Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Stealing someone's food delivery is not funny - it's just theft. Same thing with stealing passenger luggage at an airport. — Maile (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete - zero coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 14:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Manohar Chatlani

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

No significant coverage found, the subject fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG and other guidelines. Taabii (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Taabii (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete– The only source that seems reliable and significant is the Times article, but it is not sufficient.EmilyR34 (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Not only is it insufficient, it is also not about him at all, but rather about his NGO. Note also, for future information, that TOI is not entirely a reliable source. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 08:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Article fails WP:GNG, WP:SNG, and WP:NBIO. Charlie (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Mostly sources on this article are of soch apparel which itself is not notable to have an wiki article. Secondly there is lack of sig cov. in secondary reliable sources as there are only mentions, thus fails WP:GNG TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom. Fails to meet WP:NBIO. RangersRus (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Oscar Jenkins

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

There are many mentions of this in the press but further research reveals no biographical info or notable awards for gallatry etc., and is still only a WP:1E among tens of thousands of victims of conflict. Sympathy/empathy are not reasons to retain this article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment The status of Jenkins has turned into a major international incident between Australia and Russia. This is not a "sympathy/empathy" article. Thriley (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. He may be one of tens of thousands of victims, but the fact that he was an Australian foreign fighter does make this quite unusual — as shown by the fact that it is currently front page news across Australia and has been reported on internationally by outlets like the BBC and Washington Post. It also looks like this may end up being an significant foreign policy event, with the Australian prime minister promising the 'strongest action possible' and there being talk of expelling Russian diplomats. I would support renaming the article to 'Death of Oscar Jenkins' though once it's confirmed that he has been killed, and am open to reconsidering in a few months if this doesn't turn out to have a lasting impact. MCE89 (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Military, Ukraine, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Foreign soldier gets captured... Non-notable soldierly career, or much of anything before that. They've also captured North Korean soldiers, but no mention is made of them. This person being from Australia seems to be the only claim to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment I've helped expand the article with additional sources. My view is still to keep and then rename, but if the consensus is that this is not notable enough for inclusion at this time, I would ask that the article be draftified as WP:TOOSOON rather than deleted. This is already a relatively significant international incident and it seems likely to turn into a much bigger one if Jenkins' death is confirmed. If Australia does expel a foreign ambassador for the first time in 12 years, it seems pretty clear that an article on that event would be notable. MCE89 (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
This is quite a rational position to take compared to simply deleting the article. The very fact of this discussion amongst an international audience confirms that this is a notable event, and the potential to eject the Russian ambassador to Australia from Australia emphasizes an international political importance. Has to questions of Korean soldiers not being similarly highlighted, it certainly is hard to do that when their faces and bodies are burned to hide their identifications. As prisoners the Korean soldiers would have some entitlement to privacy under the Geneva conventions. As corpses there is no such entitlement. When some of those prisoners or corpses are identified, this too is likely to be an event of international significance.

I have to question the relevance of the specific editor calling out an English language article as not relevant. It appears the editor in question may have some biases, and the Wikipedia community should explore that, as well. 24.10.58.64 (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I will further add that I am a military interrogator.

This story is interesting to me separately, as the available video highlights Russian interrogation techniques, and incompetence in that field. That said, it is likely with the interrogator in the public video is not formally and interrogator, rather simply an officer, in the field. 24.10.58.64 (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Soft Keep or Draftify there's been a blaze of coverage, but it may be WP:TOOSOON to know if he or the incident is truly notable or just news. Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep Per MCE89. Thriley (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep per MCE89. BilletsMauves^€500 18:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Prisoners of war in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Per WP:1E, When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed. That person should be covered in an article regarding the event, and the person's name should be redirected to it. The subject did not have a significant role in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, so a separate article is not warranted.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Like I said, I entirely agree with you that BLP1E applies here and that this article should be eventified (similar to articles like Execution of Oleksandr Matsievskyi). I don't think anyone is really arguing that Oscar Jenkins himself is notable as a BLP subject, but instead that his capture and possible death are notable per WP:NEVENT. A merge could be an option, but I think the thing that is notable about this event is the international incident between Australia and Russia that it is threatening to spark rather than the fact that he was taken prisoner, so I'm not sure a merge into Prisoners of war in the Russian invasion of Ukraine quite makes sense. MCE89 (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep and rename to Capture of Oscar Jenkins which would solve the main problem for now. There is a lot of ongoing coverage about this incident – his capture and possible murder and its impact on relations between Australia and Russia, as well as its significance in drawing attention to Australian fighters in Ukraine. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep - echos of War of Jenkins' Ear. No opposition to a move or re-name as per MCE89. Bearian (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Melodic rock (disambiguation)

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

There are no reliable sources talking about the definition of "melodic rock", let alone specifying that melodic rock refers only to a few certain sub-genres. Instead, "melodic rock" is simply rock music with somewhat more melody than usual. It's not a topic, and it's not needed for disambiguation. Binksternet (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Disambiguations. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 06:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Not a widely used term in sources, seems to be a rare synonym of arena rock. RakdosWitch (talk) 06:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Its not related to 2 of the 3 terms listed at the disambiguation page, though as far as I know its somewhat of a synonym for AOR/arena rock --FMSky (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 26#Melodic rock Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was merge‎ to Hungarian State Railways as a viable ATD that has not garnered any opposition during the three weeks since it was proposed. Owen× ☎ 13:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

MÁV Személyszállítási Zrt.

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

No sources found. Also fails WP:NCORP. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 04:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Heart ^(talk) 04:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete; agreed. I'm not sure how this article was moved out of draftspace to begin with. I don't view it as article-worthy, not without some extra sources. Madeline1805 (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge to Hungarian State Railways (MÁV). It's the current form of that company after merging with Volánbusz. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: The MÁV Személyszállítási Zrt. was formerly known as MÁV-START, which operated under this name from 2006 to 2024 before being renamed. You can find sources from before 2024 by searching for MÁV-START. – balint36 ^{passenger complaints} 23:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Tengku Baharuddin

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

I do not see that this younger son of a Malay sultan passes WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. He does not hold any office that would be presumptively notable, and I don't see any WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources (in the article or in my WP:BEFORE search) that would pass the general notability guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Malaysia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Kara Mupo

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of this American lacrosse player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The most I found was this, which isn't much at all. There's also some quotes from her here. JTtheOG (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. JTtheOG (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Lack of SIGCOV sources means a standalone article violates SPORTCRIT. JoelleJay (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. Crouch, you want to update now, thank you! (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

List of people from Cumbria

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

Only links to two pages which only cover one town and one city in the whole county. This is unnecessary and the same information is widely available in categories. Thirdman (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. Heart ^(talk) 05:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Its outdated as there are now only 2 districts. If kept I will update. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep - This is but one such list, of many. If you delete this one, then it stands that all such un-sourced lists of people should be deleted. Category:Lists of English people by location is but one example. And even more at Category:Lists of people by location. — Maile (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep - agree with — Maile , much more useful that categories as gives context to the entries. Keith D (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Gina Hiraizumi

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

Non-notable American actress. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was a few sentences here. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, California, and Hawaii. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep: Passes WP:NACTOR through roles in Doom Patrol (TV series), Soap Girl, Only the Brave (2006 film), The Nana Project and various Lifetime productions (see page, with a couple of reviews mentioning her cited), at least. -Mushy Yank. 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC) (coverage mentioning her roles include, almost at random https://deadline.com/2021/04/doom-patrol-hbo-max-five-recur-season-3-1234742555/ ; https://collider.com/doom-patrol-season-3-cast-sisterhood-of-dada/ https://www.abookof.us/talent-index/gina-hiraizumi https://www.thewrap.com/vivica-a-fox-new-the-wrong-movies-lmn-lifetime-movie-network/ (only mentioned twice but to verify the roles) https://2paragraphs.com/2020/03/actress-gina-hiraizumi-flaunts-natural-boob-job-in-lacy-bra/ (really not great but indicates 2 other noted roles in popular series) etc ; might also been considered a prolific actress thus meeting WP:NACTOR's second criterion (https://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/gina-hiraizumi/credits/3000481836/)
my signed comment above was expanded by myself (see below) -Mushy Yank. 07:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please sign your comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I did sign and then expanded my comment in the same block, but all right, I'll sign again at the bottom.-Mushy Yank. 07:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep per above, clearly meet WP:NACTOR Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. I see a rough guideline-based consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 13:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

2025 Menlo Oaks men's volleyball team

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

College volleyball season with no indication of notability. The sources are all either trivial mentions, at least 1.5 years old, or don't mention the team at all. An online search doesn't yield any WP:SIGCOV either. JTtheOG (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and California. JTtheOG (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Maybe the team itself warrants an article but even that is not clearly established. I struggle to come up with a scenario where a college sports team's single season warrants a dedicated article. This season does not come close to notability. The content is largely promotional and the handful of references are weak and often quite old. An extreme example is the list of TV announcers which includes as a reference for one of the announcers an article from 2007. An 18 year old article that doesn't mention Menlo Oaks is neither reliable nor relevant to this team's 2025 season.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep it seems like the consensus is that Division I football, basketball, volleyball (often) and hockey (sometimes) seasons generally have notability and therefore have their own article on wikipedia. Yes, Menlo is normally a Div II program, but they are competing in a combination conference agaisn't Div one teams who either already have a 2025 season article (i.e. BYU), or have had season articles in the past (USC, UCLA, Grand Canyon, etc.). Agree that some of the references aren't great, but those can be removed to bring the structure of the article in line with other college volleyball season articles. Epluribusunumyall (talk)
Epluribusunumyall (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

According to WP:NSEASONS, there is no such presumed notability. Significant coverage must be shown to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Volleyball-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 05:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per failing WP:GNG. A season's worth of games covered by this team would not yield the independent reliable sourcing needed to withstand this article. It is true that D1 would probably have the notability, but notability is not presumed. Colleges often play against several other divisions. Conyo14 (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 14:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Abubakar Shehu Idris

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

Non-notable tech startup entrepreneur. Sources are all sponsored posts Ednabrenze (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Business, Technology, Africa, and Nigeria. Ednabrenze (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: The subject does not pass Wikipedia general Notability guidelines Ibjaja055 (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

They’re not sponsored posts. They started covering the person’s company as he is making waves in the state. Theshehv (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Speedy delete: per nom, and also includes fake refs FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
It is not fake refs, there was an error copying the link. Kindly check and update. Theshehv (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Sources are clearly press releases/sponsored posts despite the creator's insistence to the contrary. They are heavily promotional, all published 0-3 days ago, and the text is copied across different websites. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Like I said before, the said person was making a wave recently due to his tech contribution in Kaduna, that was why the the content, and all those releases are made due to the recent event and hence the 0-3 days. Theshehv (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Fails Wp:Notability, poorly sourced puff piece. Possible COI. Zuck28 (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Here are some strong reasons why the article about Abubakar Shehu Idris shouldn't be deleted from Wikipedia:

1. Notability Abubakar Shehu Idris is a notable figure in the Nigerian technology and entrepreneurship scene, having founded Stone Tech Square, a prominent innovation hub. 2. Verifiable Information The article provides verifiable information about Abubakar's life, career, and achievements, with credible sources cited to support the claims. 3. Relevance to Nigerian Technology Scene The article sheds light on the growing technology industry in Nigeria, particularly in the northern region, and Abubakar's contributions to it. 4. Compliance with Wikipedia's Biographical Standards The article meets Wikipedia's biographical standards, providing a neutral and informative account of Abubakar's life and career By considering these points, it's clear that the article about Abubakar Shehu Idris provides valuable information and insights, making it worthy of retention on Wikipedia.

Speedy delete. Note: the above "reply" was added by User:TheCrescent, who (most likely deliberately?) added it in a way so it doesn't show their name(/default signature). The reason I'm being quite accusatory (rather than assuming WP:GOODFAITH) is because the edit summary is just "Fixed typo", even though they added 953 characters.
Kinda sneaky, no? J. Geerink (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete the subject fails WP:GNG. Note the article creator is the same person that created Stone Tech Square. He/She should be investigated for UPE Ok1616 16:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was procedural close‎. Merging this discussion into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nagadai. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Fukudai

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

Based on my understanding, "dai" is the Japanese equivalent of saying "uni", so these disambiguation pages are basically for "Fuku uni". Given the double step from shortening to "Fuku Uni" to the Japanese usage of "Fukudai", I do not think this is an appropriate disambiguation page for the English Wikipedia, but I'm happy to be corrected. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it follows the same format:

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Disambiguations, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep If the term is one which may be searched for, then the disambiguation page is a good one. Same rationale for Hirodai. Such pages conform to WP:DISAMBIG because "for [the] word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing English Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead."
The foreign language argument is a red herring. For example, we disambiguate Jiaoda and Beida as Jiaotong and Peking Universities. Slightly less straightfoward example is how we disambiguate Shida to various Chinese universities (and other topics). Oblivy (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 14:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Human Rights Economy

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

This concept fails WP:GNG. Sources are none other than trivial mentions or routine coverage. GTrang (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: An odd article on a neologism that does not appear to have secondary source coverage, thus failing WP:GNG. Meanwhile, the article fails WP:NOESSAY. Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Agree with analysis above Asteramellus (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was Draftify‎. At this point, there is insufficient supporting evidence for the notability of the game. Moving to draft until after the game to help better understand whether it has longterm notability. Drafts of articles can be found at Draft:2024 AFC Championship Game and Draft:2024 NFC Championship Game. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

2025 AFC Championship Game

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

I am also nominating the related page:

These articles fail WP:SPORTSEVENT as they are not the final game/series (e.g. a Super Bowl) and there is no extraordinary event or WP:LASTING impact (at the time of this nomination). The games are adequately covered at 2024–25_NFL_playoffs#AFC_Championship:_Buffalo_Bills_vs._Kansas_City_Chiefs and 2024–25_NFL_playoffs#NFC_Championship:_Washington_Commanders_vs._Philadelphia_Eagles.

Please note that I oppose a redirect from these titles, as the NFL typically refers to its playoff games using the season year and not the calendar year. The 2024 AFC and NFC Championship Game titles already redirect to the playoff article. The 2025 AFC and NFC Championship Game titles should eventually be created as redirects to the 2025-26 NFL playoffs article (but deleted for now). Frank Anchor 03:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

KEEP There are other ones out there??? there a 2020 and 2019 one I don't understand why mine is the only one getting deleted, also in those two other articles, in the see also section of the games both my articles are featured on there, so clearly a person wanted my article there... Tommy516 (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh and also, I created it so people can check it out before and after the games end, I am obviously going to update the scores after the games on Sunday so its fully up to date. Tommy516 (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

This is already being accomplished at 2024–25_NFL_playoffs. Frank Anchor 04:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The topic of this discussion is limited to the two articles on the current season's conference championship games. Any user is welcome to start a separate AFD discussion on the other articles on conference championship games. However, pointing out the presence of other articles is not a valid argument for retaining (or deleting) an article. Each must stand on or fall on its own merit. Frank Anchor 04:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

This makes 0 sense lol Tommy516 (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the lists of deletion discussions: American football, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. Frank Anchor 04:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
SUPPORT deleting these two articles and would suggest an AFD be opened for other Conference Championship Games that have their own article as well. Assadzadeh (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I wonder if we should have articles on all the AFC / NFC Championship games, since they are pretty important and do receive a good deal of coverage. I think it's a discussion worth having at least. BeanieFan11 (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
yes I so would thank uuuu Tommy516 (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you volunteering to create articles for all the missing Championship games? Here's the only ones that exist:
1970 AFC Championship Game
1975 AFC Championship Game
1995 AFC Championship Game
1998 NFC Championship Game
2014 NFC Championship Game
2018 NFC Championship Game
2019 NFC Championship Game
2020 NFC Championship Game

Assadzadeh (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Comment The article is in pretty rough shape right now, so that doesn't help. SPORTSEVENT necessitates that games should be extraordinary and have a lasting impact on the sport and that news coverage should be extensive, specifically outside of the week of its occurrence and in non-local newspapers. The fact that the NFL conference championships are primarily notable for the fact that they qualify the winners for the Super Bowl (mentioned in the first sentence of the AFC article and the second sentence of the NFC article) doesn't go very far in convincing me that said lasting impact or extensive news coverage exists or will exist after the season concludes. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment. It is odd to me that WP:NSPORTSEVENT specifically allows notability for bowl games. Is the 2024 New Orleans Bowl really more notable than the AFC Championship? That of course speaks to a larger problem with the cited criteria and not with this AFD. By the exact way NSPORTSEVENT is written, I lean delete. But it's just hard to stomach that with the existence of articles for every Bowl Game between two barely known college football teams. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
That's because the Bowl games are typically the final game of the season for the teams that played in them, but the Conference Championship games are just a precursor to the Super Bowl. Also, there are playoff articles for each NFL season (e.g. 2024–25 NFL playoffs) and it makes more sense to include the Conference Championship info in those articles. Assadzadeh (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Plus i feel that these AFC and NFC Championship games need there own articles, there are 2 massive games and they could both very well make history, KC can make history, Buffalo can make history, Jayden Daniels and the Commaders could make history Tommy516 (talk) 07:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep - The coverage is obviously out there and there will be even more coverage on it in a few days. This just kind of feels like some attempt to prove a point. KatoKungLee (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
exactly Tommy516 (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete both - There is no indication that these championship games are going to be any more notable than any of the others that we already don't have articles for. If the games become notable for something, by all means create these articles, but this is ridiculous. – Pee Jay 12:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep, encyclopedic coverage of these important American sports events seems fine if editors are interested in writing and sourcing them. These are major events in the lives of the participants, to the fans and cities, and to the culture of the sport. If they exist and have no sourcing problems, they meet GNG as well as reader and researcher interest. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment. Since it has already been created, it may be best to wait until the games are actually played this coming January 26. If there eventually is significant coverage, it could become a Wikipedia Featured Article like 1998 NFC Championship Game. Or a Wikipedia Good Article like 2014 NFC Championship Game or 2019 NFC Championship Game. What should not happen is the November 2020 version of the 2019 AFC Championship Game article that got Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 AFC Championship Game started. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I can withdraw the nomination on the procedural grounds to allow this scenario to play out, perhaps re-nominating sometime after the Super Bowl if there is no significant WP:SUSTAINED coverage specifically related to either conference championship game. With standing delete votes from @Assadzadeh: and @PeeJay:, I will not close the AFD at this time. If the articles are not deleted, they will need to be moved to 2024 AFC Championship Game and 2024 NFC Championship Game to match precedent from prior season articles and the names the NFL uses for these game (the league uses the season year, not the calendar year). Frank Anchor 15:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Any closing admin should not interpret this procedural withdrawal request as a change in my opinion, I still support deletion. Frank Anchor 15:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to Taito. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Taito SJ System

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

This arcade game system fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 05:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect - I agree that the subject does not appear to be notable, and suggest that the previous redirect to Taito be reinstated, merging useful sourced content where possible. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect per above. Timur9008 (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 14:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Death of Natalie McNally

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

Routine murder prosecution, fails WP:NCRIME. Badbluebus (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Events, and Ireland. Badbluebus (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. The page and the sourcing I could find makes no claim that this murder is anything other than routine as murders go. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep. This topic has received substantial coverage from independent sources. For instance The Guardian The Sun and multiple sources from the BBC 1 2 3 4 1timeuse75 (talk) 11:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: Non-notable individual, being murdered by a streamer could be notable, but the article is basically one paragraph. I don't see how the crime rises to criminal notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. There's nothing that shows that the murder is notable and not just a run-of-the-mill murder. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete‎. per WP:CSD#G5 SmartSE (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Alex Gurteen

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable - created by apparent WP:COI editor (personal photos uploaded as own work) with promotional content. Does not appear to meet WP:NATHLETE and a WP:BEFORE search does not show anything to meet WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and United Kingdom. Idoghor Melody (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Speedy delete: I was unable to find any sources online. Nada. Besides, the article should be eligible under G5 as User:Ambrose6.1 (the creator) sounds very similar to User:Ambrose2015, a CU confirmed sock of User:Oscar1994alex1999. Another confirmed sock of this last user is User:Oscar248, the creator of the first article and the person concerned by this article. I believe the name similarity is not a coincidence. Welcome to ~~AFD~~ SPI. win8x (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
In short, this is block evasion, no one else has edited this article, G5. win8x (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree and will action it as such. SmartSE (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sport of athletics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

HornBlasters

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable private company (if clever at marketing); fails WP:NCORP with insufficient WP:SIGCOV. We have a single example (in the Tampa Bay Times). The rest of the coverage is niche WP:TRADES magazines that don't contribute to notability (, , ) and a thinly disguised press release (original here). A WP:BEFORE search turns up more of the same, along with a bit of thin churnalism (example) about the company's viral marketing stunts that focuses more on the effects of the stunts than on the company itself. Given that this is the third deletion discussion for this page, if the outcome is "delete" I'd ask participants to consider supporting SALTing so future attempts go through AfC and don't waste the community's time. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Florida. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

*Delete: The article fails WP:NCORP as it does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that are necessary to establish notability. The majority of the references are either niche trade magazines, promotional press releases, or articles focusing on marketing stunts rather than the company itself. The only potentially notable source (Tampa Bay Times) offers insufficient depth or detail to support notability. Given that this is the third deletion discussion, a consensus to delete with a recommendation to SALT the page is appropriate to prevent further recreation without substantive improvements.--Abhey City (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jfire (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete This is a company and GNG/WP:NCORP requires in-depth independent content *about* the *company* that is more that merely regurgitating quotes and interviews or press releases or other information provided by the company. Given this is the third iteration of this topic, I'm of the opinion that serious consideration should be given to SALT the topic. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or soapboxing. While generic "coverage" exists, none of the references in the article contain in-depth independent content and I'm unable to locate anything that meets the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete and salt: A new editing account's article about a company going about its business, sourced to brief announcement and interview based media items. I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate notability and overturn the consensus across the previous 2 AFD deletions. Any return of a future article to mainspace should be only after an accepted AFC. AllyD (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 22:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Bhadrotsav of Brahmo Samaj

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

Can't find any good sources, the article has potential close paraphrasing issues, and is very poorly written. Jay Cubby 02:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Hinduism, and India. Jay Cubby 02:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete -- (strong) -- It's been tagged with zero sources for two years. Plenty of time for an interested party to step-in. Indeed, even at creation 11 years ago, the article only had two non-reliable (and what appear to be primary) sources. I would recommend a merger with Brahmoism but that article doesn't even have a "holidays" section. (If you're interested, Brahmo looks ripe for deletion, as well. MWFwiki (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Weak Keep― Found this Telegraph article, which is significant, and a Google Books search shows more results here.EmilyR34 (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The Telegraph article can be summed up as 'usually deserted Bhadrotsab festival celebrated.' It doesn't go into much detail on the tenets of the religion. Relevant quotes:
- “Though the samaj was founded on August 20, 1828, corresponding to the 6th day of Bhadra, the programme has been organised today, as Sunday is convenient for all,” said Diptiman Bose, one of the few Brahmos in the capital.
- Hindus were the majority in the audience, for whom it was a reminder of an important historical event.
The Google Books results seem fairly passing also, but it's hundreds of pages to dig through. I really get the impression that this is perhaps mergeable. The Google Books might be of help, but Jay Cubby 17:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, merging into Brahmo_Samaj#Brahmo_Sabha seems like a better option as an ATD. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Weak Keep few significant media source available. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 10:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: agree with MWFwiki - I see some mention of this (Bhadrotsab) in Brahmo Samaj - maybe some details (year/date if source supports) from here can be added there. Asteramellus (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete - one source isn't significant coverage, period. Bearian (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 22:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Battle of al-Qarn (1160)

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

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. There is hardly any coverage of this battle in English-language sources. The sole English source cited does not reference "al-Qarn" and only briefly discusses hostilities between the Almohads and Arab tribes. The remaining four sources, which are in French, either briefly mention the fighting in passing or don't even mention "al-Qarn" at all. Skitash (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Skitash (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It is an important battle in the history of the region at the time, same as the battle of Sebiba (which still dosent have an article, il think of maybe making) or the Battle of Haydaran the Battle is well described using the 1962 Book 'Berberie Orientale sous les Zirides' that describes most of the battles context. And the battle isnt as briefly explained, if its english sources that you need i will add more if you will let me move it back to a draft.

Thank you Algerianeditor17 (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Tunisia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment. There is hardly any coverage of this battle in English-language sources. Not a valid deletion criterion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete, as per nom; fails WP:GNG, in-passing mentions in the provided sources. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: Passing through passive mentions is not want we want. No proper reference. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Draftify. It sounds like @Algerianeditor17 is claiming that non-English sources are available that pass WP:GNG, so perhaps they can work on it in draftspace and have it reviewed in WP:AFC? --Richard Yin (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Striking this !vote as a compromise no one else seems to be interested in. --Richard Yin (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom

Firecat93 (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep Per WP:SIGCOV, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." The sourcing in this article is not good (3 of the French sources provide information about Muhriz ibn Ziyad (under the spelling Mohriz), but do not mention the name al-Qarn (or not under that spelling)), although La Berbérie orientale sous les Zīrīdes, Xe-XIIe siècles has information about this on 4 pages. However, there do appear to be sources: on a quick Google Books search, I found Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, Volume 11 (1968) and Ibn Khaldun and the Medieval Maghrib Volume 1 (1999), both of which only provide snippet views - but having at least two sources in English suggests that more would be available in French or Arabic. The article needs more sources that actually reference this battle. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Both of the sources you cited provide only passing mentions of the topic. They provide little meaningful information and fail to justify the need for a standalone article.

For instance, this source states "La counquête de l'Ifriqiya (1159–1160), précédée d'un soulèvement des villes occupées par les Normands, se termine, elle aussi, par une grande défaite hilalienne au Gabal al-Qarn (1160)." = "The conquest of Ifriqiya (1159–1160), preceded by an uprising of the cities occupied by the Normans, also ended with a great Hilalian defeat at Gabal al-Qarn (1160)."

As for the other source, while I have limited access to it, it appears to echo the same point in passing—that the Hilalians lost to the Almohads in 1160. Skitash (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Non-english sources must be considered fully when discussing notability. The discussion is unclear, so far, about whether the French sources are sufficient to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

~~Weak keep~~ Three of the sources provided clearly describe the battle. Two don’t that I can see and an Arabic search didn’t throw up anything else. Possibly redirect to Almohad Caliphate#Caliphate and expansion as ATD if there’s no consensus to keep. Mccapra (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. So far, we have arguments to Delete, Keep, Draftify and even Redirect. If we can't come to a consensus here, this discussion is likely to close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Weak keep. The reasons brought forward for deletion are insufficient, especially the lack of English-language sources, which is never a requirement for anything. Cortador (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. I have analysed the chronology and coverage of the Almohad campaigns in English and other-language sources. This article is a heavy corruption of the events detailed in Battle of Sétif, a battle which occurred in 1153. If you compare the two articles, you will see that the events are largely identical, with slightly altered names (Djebbâra ben Kâmil vs Gabbara ibn Kamil, Mas’oûd ben Zemmâm el-Ballât’ vs Ma'sud ibn Zaamam, etc.) I kindly ask Cortador, Mccapra, and RebeccaGreen to review the above argument and their !votes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete changing !vote to delete based on the case set out by AirshipJungleman29. There isn’t enough here to support an article. Mccapra (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete per AirshipJungleman29, with thanks for the source analysis. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Tony McGuinness (English musician)

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

Soybean46 (talk · contribs) tagged this article for deletion and added the nomination subpage to the daily list, but did not actually create the subpage. Nonetheless, a rationale was given in an edit summary: Nominated article for deletion, doesnt meet SIGCOV. I note that there are other tags since October 2015 that also indicate COI and OR issues, but my involvement here is entirely procedural and I offer no actual opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Advertising, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Current sourcing in the article is terrible. Having said that, there is no option to delete here; per WP:BANDMEMBER we need to either redirect to Above & Beyond (band), or keep as a seperate article. To keep as a seperate article then evidence is needed to show McGuiness is notable independently of the bands he plays in. On a quick search the following are evidence supporting independent notability: DJ Mag Germany, DJ Mag Latin America, EDM.com. I will look for further sources when I have time. ResonantDis_tortion 09:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Not sure that an Instagram and Companies House sources tick the boxes of SIGCOV. Perhaps the one additional source you have added 'ticks the box', but the article still needs cleaning up. Soybean46 (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Or redirecting. Soybean46 (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, wondering if User:ResonantDistortion has come to a position on what should happen with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep I have identified a couple more sources, including covering his career in marketing - including Music Week award, and of his solo career. Article has been updated. Should be enough to show independent notability. ResonantDis_tortion 20:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep as there are now references in the article showing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Orange County Weekly, DJ Mag, Music Week, and EDM.com so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
In this case, the article should no longer bear the tag of needing references, and the Discography section should be cleaned up. I'm not sure which WP:MoS rule that falls under, but it would just make the article cleaner, wouldn't it :) I can help with that :) Soybean46 (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
If we are keeping this article, please argue my case on the Draft:Paavo Siljamäki page (which I have updated), to keep consistency across articles for Above & Beyond (band)) Soybean46 (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep which the article subject easily meets, is WP:SINGER, WP:WEB, and just looking at the page shows more than enough WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. AgusTates (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 14:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Miran Rada

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. His google scholar page shows a very low h-index and the number of citations of his publications are not impressive. Badbluebus (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Science, Biology, Medicine, Iraq, Canada, and United States of America. Badbluebus (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:Prof for low citations in a very high-cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC).
Delete. Early-career academic, just started a faculty position (not reflected in our article) after a postdoc (the Canadian position from which the only source in the article comes). People at this level of an academic career are unlikely to be notable yet and we have no evidence of him being an exception. The one source is not independent (published by McGill, the location of his postdoc) and has no depth of coverage of him so we also do not have WP:GNG notability. WP:TOOSOON. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON per above.Ldm1954 (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:NACADEMIC for now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Santorini Film Festival

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources I find are mentions, unreliable, or advertorials. CNMall41 (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Greece. CNMall41 (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 22:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

2025 Renofa Yamaguchi FC Ladies Season

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

Regional women's football team season with no indication of notability. All sources are primary. JTtheOG (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Japan. JTtheOG (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I have updated some news sources, feel free to check it out. HKFighter (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The sources all look to be from the club's own website? Ergo, not SIGCOV. Giant Snowman 21:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

There's been some secondary coverage added, looks like player signings and an interview (1, 2, 3, 4). JTtheOG (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, I have added somemore secondary sources to the article, as the season progress there should be more coverage available. HKFighter (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete—Clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Changed to Delete now that the new team page has been made. Even this early into 2025, the season in question, the team has picked up coverage in NHK (the Japanese equivalent of the BBC), TBS (another major national news organisation), and the Yamaguchi Shinbun (the major newspaper for the region where the team is from). The coverage so far has been about their signing of two professional players, rather than games played, but that is because the season itself has not yet kicked off. One assumes there will be more coverage coming as the season progresses. It seems much too soon in the piece to AfD an article which is still clearly under construction, but which ALREADY has enough coverage in major independent news sources around the new signings to have achieved notability. If anyone is wondering / wants to check that coverage out in Japanese themselves, they are citations 2,7,8 and 11 on the article as currently written. Absurdum4242 (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Also found more coverage both in various written articles, and also a TV broadcast. Here, here (with mirror version here since the original has paywalls) here, and here. It’s still mostly about the signings, but also about plans for the team to move out of the regional competitions, and into the professional leagues, and how signing professional players works as part of this plan. Still, that’s 7 different independent media sources, all with their own slant on the basic information and what it means. Absurdum4242 (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that recently located sources (in the article and discussion) can be assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment - based on the coverage above, Renofa Yamaguchi FC Ladies seems to be notable enough for an article. I'm not entirely convinced that we need to have a sub-article for this season as whatever can be pieced together from the limited sources would barely fill an article on the club, rendering a sub-article for this season unnecessary. If someone creates an article for the club with the reliable sources provided above, then we can delete this season article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I have created an article for the page, it is currently under review. HKFighter (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
sorry, I mean an article for the club. HKFighter (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Used sources from this AfD and also moved the draft to mainspace. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 14:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for arranging this. On that basis, this season article covers little that Renofa Yamaguchi FC Ladies doesn't already cover in a better way, therefore, we can delete the season (as excessive detail for this level of football) but keep the club article based on the news coverage relating to the club. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Yup, I'm just going to !vote to Delete this season article. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

comment thanks to HKFighter for making the new page

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 14:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

2025 New Zealand heat wave

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

Fails WP:NEVENT ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Clearly fails WP:NEVENT. Not one source exists that comes even closure to claiming a heat wave. Ajf773 (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Not seeing anything that describes a heat wave, much less a notable heat wave. This article, for instance, says that December 2024 was the fourth-hottest on record and that temperatures are expected to be "above average" in the early months of 2025, but doesn't describe anything unusual or notable. Yes, this summer was relatively hot (because climate change means that every summer is "one of the hottest on record"), but that doesn't mean it deserves an article. MCE89 (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete Clearly a non-WP:EVENT. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete as a fabrication. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete - one vague prediction is not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Speedy delete Fails verification. Article purports to describe a 2025 heatwave but the citations are to a news report from January 2024 predicting a spell of warm weather for that month. Daveosaurus (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Jade (sea lion)

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

The sources are just routine coverage of an animal being shot and killed. The media has not covered the story since then. ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and New Zealand. ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. The coverage happened over an extended period of time, and does not fit the description of a routine news event. Cortador (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment There seems to be sourcing happening throughout the year as the case developed, but the article presents it in a confusing way. It's unclear whether the sea lion was actually shot or killed another way. Might be worthwhile to change this page to be about the incident rather than the animal itself? RakdosWitch (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep - extensive coverage over time. Moondragon21 (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep - Extended coverage, most of it at a national level. The fact the sea lion was named is significant in that it's not a random animal. There was also news coverage prior to the death as it was unusual to swim so far inland. Blackballnz (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Creation Myth by Tom Otterness

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

I for the life of me can't find any reliable sources. the place and sculpture exists, but I don't think that it's notable. The only source I can find is

https://brooklynrail.org/2014/12/artseen/tom-otterness-creation-myth/

but I don't think this is particularly reliable. Everything else I could find online was not independent, or was covering a replacement of one of the sculptures with a bronze copy. I think this is a WP:TNT, WP:GNG, and is full of WP:PROMO in current form. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and New York. Heart ^(talk) 18:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep because it now includes its Memorial Art Gallery page as a reference. Artworks usually are verified as notable if they include their sourced holding museum reference, so please check for these if you make further artwork AfDs (thanks). Additionally, the museum website page includes its own list of references. The museum page and its references, along with many of the other cites such as newspapers and The Brooklyn Rail reference included in the nomination, meet GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep It's simply untrue that a holding museum page for an article typically establishes notability, as many museums have brief data pages for most all their artwork and even this one lacks significant coverage needed to pass GNG. But the linked in addition to the Brooklyn Rail is certainly enough for notability of the sculpture series. Reywas92^Talk 14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, museums have pages for their artworks. Please look at the museum link again, it contains further references towards the bottom. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Right, that's how I found the link I mentioned. But having a museum page doesn't mean a page is presumed to be notable, many don't have a bibliography or substantial analysis. Reywas92^Talk 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Weak delete for weak coverage. My opinion is that Brooklyn Rail is mostly reliable for its arts coverage and its articles with bylines. The author in this piece wrote two articles for the Rail 10 years ago, and then disappeared. Museum websites are also available for use on Wikipedia. The problem for me is that the artwork isn't automatically notable because of the artist. Please feel free to try to convince me this is notable on its own. I'm not strong for deletion. Bearian (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Bearian, please have a read of the museum link. It's a full presentation with multiple photographs and its own references. Museum pages are not primary references, they are simply recognition that a particular artwork (or in this case, group of works) both exists and is prominent enough to be brought into and remain in the collection of their prominent museum. Museums don't just take in any work, they closely and expertly judge notability for inclusion, which is why a single museum source is usually enough to provide notability to an artwork. In this case the artwork is also fully in public space, to be visited at any hour of the day or night, and was granted this exposure by the museum which, of course, puts its own reputation on the line when making such decisions. Thanks for asking for further discussion, an exchange of points-of-view. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
"Significant coverage" generally means three or more reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

There are hundreds of thousands of museums that have judged millions of artworks to be in their collections. Significance to display at a university gallery – or even the Met, with 1.5 million works and perhaps as many webpages about expertly judged objects – is not the same as notability on Wikipedia or the need for a standalone page here. No, a single source is not acceptable, and there is no basis for this claim in WP:N. Reywas92^Talk 22:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Strong Delete, absolutely over done, over the top article about a run-of-the-mill sculpture in a park. I laughed out loud at the line about "Despite being a world famous artist." If it is necessary to have 9 of the 16 sources be the person who made the sculpture, then that is not a "world famous artist" and this is not a notable sculpture. There is clearly not enough coverage in independent sources to support a separate article about this sculpture. This sculpture can be covered in probably two sentences in the article on the artist. Asparagusstar (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Have removed "world famous artist", good catch. Aside from that, it's not one sculpture, or a "sculpture in a park", as you imply throughout your comment. It's a series of sculptures. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Just noticed you "upgraded" your delete to 'Strong delete', even after I fixed your main objection. Pointing out again, the sculptures are not just a "sculpture' in a park but a series of sculptures placed in the outside public space of the major art museum in Rochester, New York. Aside from the museum cites the sources seem to easily meet GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

This is at least this editor's 5th comment here. Their incorrect claims have already been addressed by multiple editors. Their multiple attention-seeking comments are adding nothing to this conversation other than filibustering and wasting other editors' volunteer time. Asparagusstar (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreeing so it’s not just from one person.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge to artist's article. The fact that the only "analysis" source is the one Brooklyn Rail article is not enough to justify a standalone article. It becomes a WP:COATRACK for primary source expansion when dedicated articles should be sourced to reliable, secondary sources. In this case, they do not appear to exist. The Marlborough Gallery exhibition essay is not independent of the subject. The other sources in the Magart catalog listing might be relevant to a Centennial Sculpture Park article but even then are more likely to fill out a section on that topic within the museum's article than to substantiate an article about an individual sculpture discussed in passing. Expand in summary style within the parent artist article. Also note that this article should be retitled by the artwork titles guideline and that the multiple images uploaded to Commons need to be deleted, lacking a free license to display the copyrighted sculpture with no freedom of panorama. czar 14:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. Art isn't really my area, but I did find some additional sources that I thought might be useful. These three articles (one admittedly in a college paper) talk about plans for the sculpture and about the controversy surrounding it in a fair bit of detail: (edit: apologies, missed that one of these was already in the article). These two articles from 2018 are about ongoing maintenance of the sculpture, suggesting that it continues to attract at least some level of attention: . And I'm not sure whether this can be considered towards notability, but it's discussed at some length in this PhD dissertation (suggesting at least a minor level of academic interest in the sculpture?). It's definitely not the world's most prominent artwork, but a few pieces of artistic analysis plus some local news coverage as a landmark is enough to make me think it's marginally notable. MCE89 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Dissertations and student papers are unreliable and not considered notable coverage for notability discussions. The Rochester City Magazine articles make the case for an article about the sculpture park, which can contain discussion of the sculpture, but where's the significant coverage to write about the sculpture itself without delving into primary sources like the article has? The other local news coverage is brief and doesn't contribute to this either. czar 21:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
The museum source is not a primary source. And no, this is not bludgeoning, just a clarification about museum pages reporting about their holdings. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
You might want to re-read that essay on bludgeoning. I don't often cite essays at people, as it's rude and counterproductive, but you should really just stop responding to this AfD. You've responded 6 times, and people know your opinion, and we know you are going to disagree with those arguing delete. You really can just drop the stick. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Meets WP:GNG with the following significant coverage in reliable sources.

"TOM OTTERNESS Creation Myth". The Brooklyn Rail. 2024-08-19. Retrieved 2025-01-23.. Critical review and analysis in The Brooklyn Rail, a reliable source for art criticism.
"Gallery's sculpture garden not without controversy". The Buffalo News. 2013-08-04. p. 65. Retrieved 2025-01-23. The most interesting work at the new sculpture garden at Rochester's Memorial Art Gallery, the one that attracts the most attention, that takes up the most space, that visitors are most likely to spend the most time with, that is, in so many ways, delightful, is also the most controversial, the one with the darkest past. It's called Creation Myth and is the work of Tom Otterness, one of the country's best-known sculptors...
Jacobson, Sebby Wilson. "Inside Out: Memorial Art Gallery celebrates 100 years with a new sculpture park". American Craft. 73 (4): 90–93. Given a prime site at the park's busy corner, Otterness designed Creation Myth to link the gallery with its neighboring museums and artists' studios -and to reflect the region's history as the cradle of the U.S. women's rights movement. Reversing the roles of the traditional Pygmalion tale, the Brooklyn artist depicts female sculptors carving male sculptures amid a quarry-like setting that doubles as an amphitheater. Several massive, cartoonlike figures, composed of simple sphere, cube, cone, and cylinder forms, are rendered in Indiana limestone taken from the same quarry that supplied materials for the gallery's original building. Scattered throughout the site are about a dozen small bronze figures that depict the creative process, as well as same-sex couples kissing.
Steiner, Wendy (2015-08-01). "Moved by Metal On Beauty as Interaction". Metalsmith. 33 (4). Tom Otterness builds whole playgrounds out of the debris of the old Palace of Art, humanizing the cold geometric forms of modernism into lovable cones, cubes, and spheres. In the "Creation Myth" series, he deploys these figures to overturn the misogyny of the Pygmalion myth. In this archetypal account of male creativity, the sculptor Pygmalion refuses to use any model for his image of beauty, because he believes that all women are prostitutes. He fabricates an ideal female figure out of his own imagination, and predictably, falls in love with his self-projection. With the help of the gods, he kisses the statue to life and then marries her. This is Interactive Beauty with a vengeance, I suppose, except that the women in the story have no agency. Pygmalion is not only the artist, but the model for his artwork, its viewer, and its owner. Otterness amends this closed circuit with a female artist who sculpts a male statue, and when the two kiss, they kiss as equals.

Jfire (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep: Changing to keep from nom, I am convinced by the previous comment. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment Adding some sources right now. Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep I've gone and added three newspaper articles to about the sculpture and of the local controversy of Tom Otterness shooting a dog for an experimental film. I also removed a lot of the fluff and anything that didn't have a citation to support it. On a personal note this is a wonderfully ugly sculpture, 10/10 glad it's not in my town. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

TRENDnet

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

Nominating for deletion for failing to meet WP:NCORP; and passing mentions media coverage Villkomoses (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep: Plenty of tech reviews to be found about their products in RS. The one source in the article about the FTC enforcement helps, as does this one . Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
reviews are about the products, not the company I guess 2A09:5000:8:8034:74E0:C34:8C84:1D6D (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
the one source you provided is not a reliable one 2A09:5000:8:8034:74E0:C34:8C84:1D6D (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep: The Verge (cite) and CNET (cite) provide significant coverage. I suspect that a proper WP: BEFORE was not conducted before this nomination was made. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

no significant coverage found, explained below in my delete vote 2A09:5000:8:8034:74E0:C34:8C84:1D6D (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: , , These mentioned above sources are not reliable as they do not provide in-depth coverage of the company or address the topic with the necessary depth. All the sources are event-based and focus on a one single event about some claims settlement. I also cannot not find any additional reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of the company. --2A09:5000:8:8034:74E0:C34:8C84:1D6D (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I would agree with this, as current sources is more about the event of the "security leak" that the company faced and just brief mentions about the company itself. the article is supposed to highlight the company and not about what the issues they have faced see In re TRENDnet, Inc. which is more focused appropriately on what the citations here are pertaining to. If more RS can be found where it is more about the company being discussed. (e.g. History, achievements, contributions..) then this maybe considered keeps otherwise delete or return to drafts? Villkomoses (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Clear WP:NCORP pass.

Wyatt, Edward (2013-09-05). "F.T.C. Says Webcam's Flaw Put Users' Lives on Display". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2025-01-23.

This is precisely one of the examples from WP:SUBSTANTIAL: A report by a consumer watchdog organization on the safety of a specific product. There's also a lot of product coverage in ProQuest and Google Books. Jfire (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep Standard stub for a manufacturer of soho devices with proper sourcing; expansion candidate more than for deletion. Nate • (chatter) 22:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Despite additional references, the consensus here is they do not provide significant or non-local coverage. ✗plicit 11:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Steven Wiig

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

as an actor, fails WP:ENT, having only one notable named role in Milk (2008 American film). all his remaining credits are unnamed, often uncredited roles, with even his most notable appearance in Into the Wild (film) being an unnamed ferry ranger. only one local source is used as evidence for this "notability", alongside IMDb which is not reliable per WP:IMDBREF. as a musician, he fails WP:NMUSIC; his most notable accomplishment is playing in a band that Metallica's bass player also played in. once again, the "notability" for his music career is established with only one source. jeschaton (immanentize) 20:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. Heart ^(talk) 20:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Other named roles include Into The Wild (as Lee's Ferry Ranger), Milk (as McConnelly), Yosemite (as Michael), Sacred Blood (as Buck), Waiting For Wiig (as Wiig), All The Others Were Practice (as Amir) and I'm Charlie Walker (2022) as Dan Wallace.

Recorded two albums with Jason Newsted's (Metallica) on Chophouse Records: Unipsycho (2002) and Live Lycanthropy (2003)

https://www.discogs.com/artist/2154086-Papa-Wheelie

Also released several albums with Shrakys, The Martichora and soon Radio Incognito Nagalist (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Member of the Screen Actors Guild since 2011. SMCLL (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep per Article updates Nagalist (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment:: "Lee's Ferry Ranger" is a job description, not a name. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 03:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

"Lee's Ferry Ranger" is the name of the character. Nagalist (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep notable appearances updated SMCLL (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I struck out the comment above because SMCLL had already entered their view below (duplicate !vote). Schazjmd (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, WP:NMUSICIAN, or WP:GNG. I found one independent source not already used in the article but like the others, it's merely local coverage, and even it says "Wiig's path to what you might call U.P. superstardom -- he's still relatively unknown in lower Michigan, but is becoming a household name in the U.P.", indicating a lack of notability outside of the area where he grew up. That was in 2014, but I cannot find any significant coverage since then either. Schazjmd (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Of the additional sources that Nagalist just added to the article, most are trivial mentions, a piece in a school paper, plus a few blogs and imdb. There is the cineSOURCE article, however cineSOURCE is a niche online site for the Marin area (where Wiig lived at the time), so it still seems like local coverage only. Schazjmd (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Hollywood Reporter, San Francisco Chronicle, SFGate, Blabbermouth, Loudwire, Guitar World & Inside Pulse are NOT local niche resources SMCLL (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes they are not local niche publishers, but they don't have significant coverage about Steven Wiig. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete Per nomination and above comment. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

References updated Nagalist (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep per updates SMCLL (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC) — SMCLL (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Sources updated SMCLL (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that editors can review sources added recently to the article. I'm not optimistic though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to De De Pyaar De#Sequel. Please do not revert this Redirection until film is released. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

De De Pyaar De 2

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Not scheduled for release until November and nothing notable about the production. References are announcements or other churnalism. Attempted redirect but that was disputed. CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with the PROD initiating editor to redirect instead of deleting. But since that was disputed, I don't think it should be deleted. It's a continuing sequel of an already existing article on wikipedia. The page should be redirected until release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameremote (talk • contribs) 19:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Which was the original intention but now here we are unfortunately. I still think a redirect would be an appropriate WP:ATD but would need to protect the title so we don't wind up here yet again. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep is vote by me. this film was supposed to release in May 2025, but due to certain unavoidable reasons, the release has been deferred to November 2025. Now the editor who has nominated the film wiki page for deletion says the film is too early and nothing substantial, and I also get to see a comment that says redirected. For both my request is please look into the below wiki links of Hollywood films set to release in 2025 & 2026, as well as Bollywood films set to release in 2025.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_films_of_2025
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_films_of_2026
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindi_films_of_2025

As you can see Hollywood films like Avatar: Fire and Ash OR Avatar 3 is releasing in Dec 2025, Now You See Me 3 is releasing in Nov 2025, Mortal Kombat 5 is releasing in Oct 2025, Even untitled films have well-established wiki pages even a Shrek 5 releasing late 2026 has a well established wiki page. As for Bollywood films is Jolly LLB 3 set to release in July 2025, Baaghi 4 releasing late 2025 has a well established wiki page. All these films have well established wiki pages, now if delay in release is the reason for deleting this wiki page, what is the 'guarantee' the above films will be released on said dates. Or if 'too early' is reason to delete this wiki page, same logic needs to apply to wiki pages of above movies mentioned. As for 'redirect', I find no reason for it as the film was delayed due to reasons beyond the makers control, so this film was delayed, otherwise the fim would have released on earlier mentioned dates. Will those voting to redirect or delete apply the same logic to above films. think about it. As for material as b when it comes that can be added. I hereby rest my case. Bonadart (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be based on WP:OSE. Can you show how this meets notability under WP:NFILM?--CNMall41 (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

this film is a direct sequal to a superhit movie with almost the entire crew taking part once again, is that reason not enough for notability. you call it argument unfortunately today people when have no answer to reason they call it argument, sigh. Bonadart (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The term argument in that context does not mean anything negative. It means your "contention," "point," or "reasoning." Please don't go down that road. Now, as far as notability, I am unaware of anything in WP:NFILM that says direct sequals of a superhit movie are inherently notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Draftify or Delete. Too early to pass WP:NFILM that has not even reached post production. Better to keep it in draft or recreate the article once significant coverage is available after post production or close to release date. RangersRus (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
'that has not even reached post production.' how do you know? can you show anything that says so. makers have not specified any reason for delay as for shooting afaik mumbai, punjab and london schedules are already done, so invariably the film is in post production, must be there are some delays here. how i know!! well remember 'singham again' where ranveer singh made the famous dialogue 'parivar bhi badne wala hai' and deepika delivered her baby before filmn released. 😀😀 this clearly meams shooting was clearly over when she took maternity leave. normally bollywood films complete shooting within 6-8 month. so filmn is obviously in post production. so draft or delete dont stand. if you insist check Baaghi 4 Jolly LLB 3, Avatar 3 Now You See Me 3 or Mortal Kombat 5, and do share opinion on them. ciao Bonadart (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Post-Production is the stage after production when the filming is wrapped and the editing of the visual and audio materials begins. Please do not bring other pages for discussion in this AFD. RangersRus (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
you still havent answered my questions

1.'that has not even reached post production.' how do you know?

2. check Baaghi 4, Jolly LLB 3, Avatar 3 Now You See Me 3 or Mortal Kombat 5 based your assertion about this film, shouldnt these pages be removed as well

😀 i get it you got no andswer, period!!😀, or is it that if you try to delete these pages bigger players may come after you.

i say again, just bcoz this film has been delayed doesnt call for deletion or draft or redirect, you cant raise notability flag everytime without reason.

06:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Bonadart (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
You are attempting WP:BLUDGEONING and crossing WP:UNCIVIL behavior. You are also attempting WP:CANVASSING by asking other editor to vote in your favor. I answered your question already but you do not understand and gave you a definition of what Post production is. Source on the page shows the film is in the making and no other sufficient coverage to show otherwise and if you have concerns about any other pages on the films, you can file an AFD for them. RangersRus (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Note to closer. Bonadart attempted WP:CANVASSING requesting other editor to vote in his favor and bringing more votes to do so. RangersRus (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
chill i didnt know requesting for help is considered canvassing here, as soon as i was made aware of such i removed the help request, btw i have no interest in requesting for other page deletion/afd. i have problem with the way the editor CNMall41 behaved, the editor simply removed the entire page saying 'too soon' in edit note, when the makers changed the release date without giving any reason from 1/5/25 to 14/11/25. when i reinstated it the editor becoming aware of it, immmidiately went for deletion request saying notability issue. how come too soon becomes notability in a jiffy? it is for this reason i thought seeking help from anyone will help stop such disruptive editing n nomination. btw i am involved in film industry so i know a bollywood film takes 6-8 month to finish shooting and around same time to post production. as such in all sense n purpose this film is in post production even if details arent there. i hope i make myself clear. ciao Bonadart (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Curious, how were you made aware of WP:CANVASSING? Off-wiki communication? RangersRus (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I actually notified them with a warning for such on their talk page but they removed it. It's heading towards ANI unfortunately. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Weak Keep or redirect to De De Pyaar De. Given the low quality of most of the sources, this article may well be premature, but given that it will certainly be notable upon release and that there is some coverage of the ongoing production I can't in good faith say delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
hi thanks for the 'keep' vote but i have point, you talk of low quality on this wiki page but the same type of sources have been used to create pages for Jolly LLB 3 and Baaghi 4, btw the way n when was made the page isnt premature, it was inline with release set for may 2025, if film were to release on date as mentioned earlier then it wont have been dubbed premature, as for delay till nov 2025 makers havent specified reasons so cant be called premature since shooting afaik is done & is now in all purpose in post production though no details available. btw as more info is published the page will grow as such redirect too isn't right. Bonadart (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

You have been told numerous times to stop bringing up WP:OSE. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra and Punjab. -Mushy Yank. 19:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to De De Pyaar De#Sequel: Opposed to deletion. (Draft OK, K Ok). Note to closer: I received a message from Bonadart about this AfD, which Bonadart removed from my TP later, probably because he/she realised it was "canvassing". I probably would have !voted here anyway :D. -Mushy Yank. 20:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
-- dear Mushy Yank 1st thing i never knew that asking for help is considered so called canvassing here. 2nd thing i asked for your help bcoz i was unable to figure out how to handle the acts of CNMall41. 3rd thing this editor CNMALL41 1st simply removed the entire page without discussions giving reason in note 'too early'. when i reinstated the page the editor puts it into deletion stating notability issues. how does too early become notably in a jiffy. if really notability was issue then why CNMall41 contribute to the page previously. you are opining redirect but this film was slated to release on 1/5/25 & now delayed to 14/11/25 for reasons not clarified by makers. if film was to release on same day as mentioned earlier would have you given the same redirect opinion. btw same logic should apply to other sequel films slated for release in late 2025 & 2026 in Hollywood/Bollywood. 4th thing, there is akshay kumar sequel lawyer film that is slated to release on same may or 5/25 when this film was slated to release as originally planned. it has a well established page using same types of sources that were used to create this page. Same case with tiger shroff film which is 4th sequel slated to release 11/25. it too has a established page. dont you think these pages too be redirected after all what gaurantee they will release on same date. Bonadart (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello, Bonadart, No issue at all with the message on my TP as far as I am concerned, I understand it was an honest mistake and I am just mentioning it for the record to avoid that work to the closer or other users.;D The redirect can be undone when more coverage appears and I am not opposed to Keep anyway (which might have been my !vote if there had been no involuntary "canvassing" (not sure)). As for the other films, depending on the sources, feel free to redirect them boldly if you think it's better. As for other users' opinions, I cannot speak for them but the essay WP:TOOSOON is connected to the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Thanks! -Mushy Yank. 10:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
hi i know TOOSOON is connected to Notability, but does it mean that if you want to apply toosoon and it doesnt hold ground so apply notability to remove a page. i guess not, it can be either one of them not both. Bonadart (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was merge‎ to ArcGIS. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

ArcGIS Urban

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

Cannot find WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:COMPANY, none such provided in the article and my googling does not turn up any seefooddiet (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Products, and Software. seefooddiet (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge with ArcGIS since Urban is a product within Esri's ArcGIS line. Not sure if WP:COMPANY applies here since it's a product and not a company, but agree that this should be deleted due to poor sourcing. Artwhitemaster (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Found a decent scholarly source here , still looking for other sources before I cast a !vote. Toadspike [Talk] 10:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Also found , which has a brief description of ArcGIS Urban. All other hits on Google Scholar appear to be false positives. Toadspike [Talk] 10:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

has some coverage but might be based entirely on press releases, I'm not sure. might be better. There are some passing mentions elsewhere, which I won't bother to list.

I support a merge to ArcGIS – a case could be made for notability, but the article doesn't have much detail anyways, so a standalone page doesn't make sense to me. Toadspike [Talk] 10:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi all! I'm the user who created the page, and I'm still relatively new at making pages (mostly did small edits until now). Full disclosure: I work as a software engineer on this product (ArcGIS Urban), and I wasn't exactly familiar with the Wikipedia notability test - a learning experience for me! Since I saw the "nominated this article for deletion" banner, I haven't made more edits, but maybe it would help if I added more references and expanded the article? In the end I will defer to the experts on whether the page needs to be kept/merged/etc. CJJ2501 (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply! Please also keep in mind WP:COI; on Wikipedia working on topics you have a paid relationship to comes with significant caveats.

Regardless of COI, you could try to identify more reliable sources (namely third party mainstream news coverage) but I've done some looking and am a bit skeptical it would pass notability. seefooddiet (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Moshe Chalava

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

Non notable rabbi. From my searches only one source (an obscure one) accounts for his existence. On google, searching him up only nets 25 results, with the majority of them copying the en-wp article. Plasticwonder (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete - Created in 2011 with no inline sourcing. The "References" section is actually a template of other Wikipedia Rabbi articles. — Maile (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. It appears that the article passes WP:NCORP and there is a rough consensus for keeping this article at this time. Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

GoBolt

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

Fails WP:NCORP, sourced to press releases (fail WP:ORGIND) and funding reports (fail WP:ORGTRIV). ~ A412 ^talk! 19:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep and rework. On a pure WP:GNG basis there seems to be enough reliable sourcing here to meet notability. Certainly the sourcing is pretty bad and the author may need to be trouted and/or reminded of WP:SELFPUB, but other than that it's fine as I see it. guninvalid (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The one keep comment seems mildly contradictory with itself. As of now there clearly is not a consensus for any specific course of action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Weak keep. When you weed out the bad sourcing and announcements, there are still at least two good ones, Collier's (Canada) and The Globe and Mail. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep: References 17 and 18 seem to be reliable, independent, and non-churnalism. All the promotional and non-independent sources need to go, however; far too many laundered press releases and routine announcements. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete none of the sources meet NCORP requirement. as this is a company page, GNG cannot be applied here. 17 and 18 sources are only about financing, event-based and no deep enough to provide reliable coverage. --71.251.8.132 (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to Timeline of Russian history#20th century. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

20th century in Russia

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

Page duplicates Timeline_of_Russian_history#20th_century. DeemDeem52 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Russia. DeemDeem52 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
No, it doesn't? 20th century in Russia is a collection of links to "[year] in Russia" articles starting with 1991 in Russia and ending with 2000 in Russia (so it's "Russia" in the sense of the Russian Federation, specifically—not the Russian Empire or Russian SFSR). Timeline of Russian history#20th century is entirely different. The article does however duplicate part of List of years in Russia—was that what you meant? I'll note that 21st century in Russia redirects to Timeline of Russian history#21st century. TompaDompa (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, thank you -- List of years in Russia is indeed what I meant. DeemDeem52 (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't see the benefit of having this article in addition to List of years in Russia (they are both purely navigational collections of links to articles, and this one is a proper subset of the other one), so it would be appropriate for it to redirect there. However, given that 21st century in Russia redirects to Timeline of Russian history#21st century, I suppose this should instead redirect to Timeline of Russian history#20th century for consistency. Either way, redirect. TompaDompa (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)