Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

4 January 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< January 03	January 05 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

YBSPoloBabyy

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

This page appears to be an autobiography (created by User:YBSPoloBabyy (talk)), contains no sources and does not meet notability standards. Cyrobyte (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Araba 2004

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

Does not meet WP:NSINGLE. Unreferenced. -Samoht27 (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. -Samoht27 (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Appears to satisfy WP:GNG as the music video was a subject of scholarly analysis by multiple authors: [1] [2]. I can't find anything beyond these two authors though. The two authors both appear in the first source, but I don't think it stops the sources from being independent of each other. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mustafa Sandal or Mustafa Sandal discography: not convinced a separate article is necessary Rainydaywindows (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Westchester County tornado

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

Wow, I've never AfD'd an FA before. Anyways, this tornado is not notable as there was no coverage past a few days after the event, with one mention three months after the event, too low for a tornado in my opinion. Fails my criteria as well. If this article were to be made today, I'm 100% sure it would no longer exist. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NEVENT and there is no WP:LASTING coverage. It's rarity, much like its rating, means absolutely nothing if no sources consistently talk about. Notability concerns were also brought up during the FAC, so I'm not sure how it passed. E_F⁵ 04:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. E_F⁵ 04:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It got a lot of coverage at the time of the event and still gets mentioned as a notable NY State/Northeast tornado after many years (for example, here, here, here, here, and here). Plus, this isn't a crappily written stub, it's an FA, so there's some readable text there (though it looks like it needs some updatilng), and if it's even a close call, I'd rather preserve the content. Plus, all the reviewers at FAC (and GA and any peer review) must have thought that it was notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider any of those sources WP:INDEPTH. An article's class has little to do with it's notability in this case; the article was FACed in 2008 and standards... weren't as high back then. Was going to take it to FAR but realized it likely isn't even notable. This isn't the first time a tornado GA/FA has been at a delete/merge venue, see this discussion which almost ended with a GA being merged. E_F⁵ 13:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom – Whilst the article is an FA, most of the coverage occurred during the initial aftermath of the tornado, with none of the sources presented above, or those from a search, including continued significant or in-depth coverage of the event. Optionally, a merge to Tornadoes of 2006#July 11–12 is a possibility. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Although some news coverage still exists, it is mostly in the form of "tornadoes in New York are rare" or something along that line, and not much about the actual tornado.

the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no lasting significant coverage. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since we are considering deleting an FA. Also, there is a proposal to Merge this article which needs due consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Jazirah Aviation crash

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

Unnotable aviation accident. Although a tragic one, this is a routine accident. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shields, Accomack County, Virginia

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

I've been PRODding my most recent batch of Virginia ones, but taking this one to AFD as I'm less confident here. Whitelaw's county history has references to the index to "Shield's P.O." and "Shield's Wharf", but unfortunately the volume those are in is not on Internet Archive. Those items are mentioned only on one page. Nothing in the Arcadia history of the county. Searching on newspapers.com is very difficult due to search engine noise, but I'm just getting passing references to surnames, the wharf, and a steamship landing that is probably the wharf. I don't see a WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND pass here, and substantive sourcing will be needed here especially given the vague name. Hog Farm _Talk 04:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Virginia. Hog Farm _Talk 04:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Moldovan Youth League

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

Youth football season with no indication of notability. Pretty much every yearly edition of this article is sourced only to primary sources. I don't see a possible redirect target, either, as no article for the youth league itself exists. JTtheOG (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Moldova. JTtheOG (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, such stub articles are notable. The winner of this competition qualifies to Uefa competition, such articles exists also for Spain , England U18 level,and few more countries. However I completely agree, there is not enough sources, adding seconfpdary sources will be great. Kolya77 (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Kornberg

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

Previously nominated for proposed deletion by a different editor, but was contested on Talk:Maya Kornberg. The article generally lacks verifiable third-party sources and relies heavily on professional pages as well subject's own personal page. Per WP:Notability, candidates for political office are not inherently notable. Nearly all the sources I could find on Kornberg which may be used to improve the page exclusively focus on her council candidacy and the page was only created following her announcement. Her professional career working in NGOs does not appear notable enough for an article. Because of this, I nominate the article for deletion due to a lack of notability and agree with previous attempt under Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. --Stanloona2020 (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Women, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:BASIC even without the political candidacy, with coverage such as the independent review for her book Inside Congressional Committees (Columbia University Press, 2023) in the academic journal Congress & the Presidency and the 2010 article about her environmental activism in the Jerusalem Post. She is also quoted frequently in the national media in the U.S. as an expert on Congress and elections. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The subject looks notable with independent coverages. Gauravs 51 (talk)

New Jersey Transit Kearny Point Garage

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

Redirect to NJ Transit Bus Operations#Divisions, facilities, and operators. Fails WP:GNG as I am unable to find any WP:SIGCOV of this bus depot. JTtheOG (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Jersey. JTtheOG (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Of the 5 sources, one is a non-RS wiki, one from the operator, and three don't even mention the subject. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sex, Love, Misery: New New York

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

Does not meet WP:NFILM, the only mentions of this film are a handful of online reviews from smaller websites. This film has generally positive reviews but isn't otherwise notable. Many editors have tried to improve the article but there isn't much to work with outside those reviews. See Talk page where this was discussed. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, COVID-19, and United States of America. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the significant coverage in reliable/[generally-accepted] sources. -Mushy Yank. 04:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC) [Edited; see below and TP][reply]
Keep This is a relatively low budget independent documentary film, but that does not mean that it is not notable. Rotten Tomatoes is considered a reliable source for review aggregation, per WP:ROTTENTOMATOES, although not every review that is aggregated is automatically presumed to be reliable. In this case, the film has seven reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, all of them generally positive though not overwhelmingly positive. Four reviews are currently used as references in the article. Those four sources, Film Carnage, Film Threat, High on Films and GhMovieFreak are already used extensively as references in many existing film articles. If it is argued and agreed that those sites are not reliable in this article, then it will be necessary to edit hundreds of film articles to remove references to those sources and the content they support. Is the nominator willing to take on that task? A complicating factor in this case is that the article was created by a highly problematic editor who has since been indefintely blocked. However, other editors in good standing have contributed to the article, and we should not delete articles about notable topics just because they were originally written by editors who have later been blocked. That can be perceived as vindictive. The article was Prodded twice but only one prod per article is allowed. I deprodded it. In conclusion, I believe that the best course of action is to keep this article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Actually, there are 5 reviews cited. -Mushy Yank. 06:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the fifth review just added as a reference is from BWRC which is also widely cited as a reliable source in film articles. Cullen328 (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But Jovanmillic97 removed one, so we are back to 4...For the record, unless we are dealing with a BLP and a potentially libelous source, I disapprove the bold removal of content when a page is being discussed, especially when it’s sourced and sources are, precisely, the main point being discussed. -Mushy Yank. 13:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 The "sources are already used extensively in many articles" or that it's a big hassle to edit them all out arguments are very, very thin and neither are based in any Wikipedia guideline or policy. Just a cursory search on the first one (Film Carnage) reveals that it's a blog by some Rebecca (film fan with no journalistic credits or anything) reviewing indie films. Is that what are we calling "reliable" nowadays? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you do not count the reviews from the three sites mentioned below, including the one you mention, 5-3=2, which is the threshold commonly accepted for the number of reviews necessary for a film, and that is based on NFILM and/or GNG. -Mushy Yank. 13:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be wary of reviews from Film Carnage, High on Films, and GhMovieFreak. There are a lot of film articles out there that are under the radar, while articles for mainstream films get a lot of attention. So it's always possible that these proliferated inappropriately and may be propping up other articles falsely. As it has been said, "other stuff exists". We have to remember that at the end of the day, Rotten Tomatoes is a commercial website, so it is financially interested in collating all possible reviews for any film. It's basically like IMDb's External reviews page. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies as I didn't notice the first PROD.

I came across this article due to the blocked editor, but I didn't want that to be used as a reason for deletion so deliberately didn't mention it here. If the consensus is "keep" then I'm more than happy to tidy up the review section, although I'm not sure how to beef up/expand the remainder since the bulk of the article is the review section - that was one of my concerns during the TP discussion with @Axad12 on what to do next (this is where AFD came up).

I'll gladly accept & seek out any tips or recommendations on how best to proceed with that endeavour if the article stays, so every post here is really helpful in that respect! Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep: Sourcing available in the article itself meets NFILM. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Reading Beans, did you mean to say "Keep"? Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I’ll change it now. I definitely misclicked. Thank you for letting me know. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of the set of reviews for this film, only one is a reliable source: Film Threat. The other reviews are not reliable sources. Being used for the Rotten Tomatoes score does not mean anything since RT is a commercial website that will collate everything possible. It's like a film having an IMDb page with a list of external reviews available. If many Wikipedia articles are citing these reviews, that's a big problem. It could be more people like the editor who made this, or editors who thought they can just use any review listed at RT, regardless of reliability. Of course, I work mainly with mainstream film articles, so if there is a WP:RS case to be made for these reviews, go ahead and make it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but what makes you say BRWC is not reliable? -Mushy Yank. 13:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at About Us, I do not see the people involved as having beyond-the-website credentials to be "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject" per WP:SOURCEDEF. In the footer, it proclaims itself as "a blog about films". If it is a blog, it can only be acceptable per WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Google Books here seems to show only one book that has ever referenced BRWC. I don't see anything in Google Scholar either. What is your take? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s technically a blog but not in the sense of a personal blog and they have a limited team of contibutors not just whoever wants to write there; they exist since 2008, so they might be considered OK, I guess. And the author of the review seems to have wrtitten a lot of reviews that look Okaysih in terms of quality. GhMovieFreak is a bit of the same, it’s not user-generated. If there was a list like Lists of films about the COVID-19 pandemic, I’d say redirect but there does not seem to be one. And with the Film Threat review, that’s generally reliable, i feel it would be unfair to delete this. -Mushy Yank. 23:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page seems lacking in its actual state. The Reception section, which currently is the only section with more than 2 lines of text, has partial and redundant content. Did at least one of the contributors even watch the documentary? Bit-Pasta (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I do think at least one did. -Mushy Yank. 00:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per Erik above. Axad12 (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will say that personally, I see BRWC as a RS as long as it's a non-paid article. However I'm aware that overall the sourcing here isn't the strongest. So what I'm suggesting here isn't that we keep this article but rather than we create an article for the director. She's put out some other films that have received reviews from places like The Hollywood Reporter, Cinema Crazed (typically seen as reliable on here), and Film Journal International. There appears to be enough sourcing to justify creating an article for her - we can have a section on her film career so it's not just a list of films and links to reviews. That could be a good compromise here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shannon Alexander. It's not the biggest or best article I've ever done on a director, but I think there's enough to justify him passing notability. This also gives a good compromise: we can redirect this article to the director's page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. The suggested redirect and possible merge can be a good compromise. Best wishes. -Mushy Yank. 04:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure that the newly created article on Alexander passes GNG? It looks to me that there is a shortage of decent coverage about Alexander - just a single interview and a collection of film reviews (i.e. not actually sources about the director himself). I think it would be a good idea if somebody nominated the Shannon Alexander article to AfD to test this in practice.

It doesn't seem a very good idea to recommend a redirect when the redirect article suffers from exactly the same problem as the article which is the subject of this AfD. Axad12 (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus on whether or not the existing sources are sufficient and now there is a suggestion to Redirect or Merge that needs to be considered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Transit Greenville Garage

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

Redirect to NJ Transit Bus Operations#Divisions, facilities, and operators. Article was moved back to the mainspace without showing the slightest indication of notability. The only sources are a user-generated site and a PDF of a bus schedule. JTtheOG (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Jersey. JTtheOG (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Tabin

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NPROF. Fairweather Foundation is a small non-notable foundation. Risker (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Health Dynamics Inventory

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

Non-notable medical tool. The inventors of this procedure appear to have copy-pasted promotional material onto Wikipedia, and even left their contact information at the bottom. It remains without secondary sourcing 14 years later. All the sigcov listed is self-published by the authors. Jdcooper (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found several PhD theses on ProQuest that use the Health Dynamics Inventory, but I can't find any independent journal articles that use it. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find any secondary coverage on google scholar. I think WP:TNT applies even in the case that a wikipedia article could be written.--Rolluik (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been PROD'd before so it is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of music and dance anime

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

I'm not an expert with the Anime WP, but the term "music and dance anime" seems not to satisfy WP:NLIST: it's not a specific category on the wiki, the self-imposed criteria of not contain[ing] strictly idol anime, OVAs and ONAs but may contain anime that use idol setting or themes as part of a bigger plot would seem to be so vague and indefinite as to make the list difficult to populate or understand what makes an entry eligible. There is also no sourcing to support list entries. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to List of musical anime I'll try to fix and redefine it. WP:TNT is also an option . Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, the two options you've presented are polar opposites. Just clarifying - do you think the list as currently drafted can satisfy WP:NLIST? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Music, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the self-imposed criteria of not contain[ing] strictly idol anime, OVAs and ONAs but may contain...", the autor of the article here, is because there already is a list of idol anime and manga so there is no need to duplicate things. Also majority of people are not into both, they are either into idol things or are not. You could divide music anime/manga genres into two broad subgenres: idol subgenre and non-idol subgenre. There are examples for "not strictly idol, but uses idol setting as part of a bigger plot": Heroines Run the Show: The Unpopular Girl and the Secret Task. A girl works for an idol and in idol setting but the story is not about being an idol or becoming an idol. The other is Key the Metal Idol. Also in idol setting but there is a conspiracy behind the curtain and existential crisis of a robot - now compare it to run of the mill idol stories like Pretty Rhythm or D4DJ. There is also anime like Samurai Jam -Bakumatsu Rock-, Hypnosis Mic: Division Rap Battle Rhyme Anima and Paradox Live the Animation for which you could say are idol stories because of the characters but the story is not about being an idol. I don't think it's vague. It's just a question of is there a story about sth other than being (becoming) an idol in the story.
You stated "Inexplicably it also looks like the list contains manga as well." It does NOT. You should't misguide people and not provide examples. Everything on the list is/has an anime/OVA/ONA, but the "problem" is that not many anime have their own articles or (anime-)links redirect to a manga page. It would be ridiculous to expect than a 1 ep OVA has an article. I tried to have as many blue links as posssible so it's possible there are links to a manga but it DOES have anime/OVA/ONA.
There is "dance" in the name of the article because there are anime that revolve around dance, rather than just singing and playing instruments, namely Hula Fulla Dance, Brave Beats and Tribe Cool Crew.
"no sourcing" - not sth that cannot be done after the fact and there is a reason for that. not justification, but for majority of entries there is a blue link to the main article that has all the sourcing you can get so it's not sth I pulled out of my ass. I choose not to source, primarily, because I knew there were bound to be dense people, I was right, and there is likelihood for the article to be deleted, so potentially not to lose extra time I made that decision. A list like this, and this is quite a comprehensive list, takes quite a bit of time to make, more than you could guess. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have omitted the misleading statement in the nomination. I appreciate the time it's taken to create this. WP:NLIST and WP:SALAT is a concern because the list is manually assembled and has an unclear scope. When looking at pages like List of idol anime and manga you can see there's a sourced background and exploration of its scope. Without that here, it's hard to reliably figure out what qualifies an entry for the list other than loosely having a music and/or dance focus. The idol point is a concern because it would be quite WP:ARBITRARY to consider what goes in and out of this article based on an editor's subjective assessment of how much the anime involves an idol plot. That's why external sourcing about this as a clear genre or category is important. Others may consider that this is a very clear and established genre category and if so that's ok and all that needs to be done is better support this in the article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Miminity. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Setenzatsu.2, I take it that your comment is a vote to "Keep" this article? Also, an AFD can not close with an outcome of "Rename" as that is an editing decision. If that is what you want to happen. then vote to Keep this article and then a potential rename discussion can occur.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Banaras Flyover

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

Does not meet WP:GNG as well as WP:NGEO. Article needs a rewrite as well. TNM101 (chat) 15:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TNM101 (chat) 15:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is terribly written, I wholeheartedly agree, but I don't believe this is a candidate for WP:TNT. A quick google search (in English only) pulls up enough results to meet WP:GNG. I'm sure there's much more in Urdu. Also, I think it may have also been named the Varanasi Flyover at one point? Angryapathy (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't mean the reason for the nom was its poor writing, it was actually about it not meeting notability criteria. Although if there are reliable sources, I may as well withdraw the nom TNM101 (chat) 17:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Varanasi Flyover. The lack of details in the initial description may have led to confusion, making it seem poorly written. However, the actual information we gathered through a detailed survey was perceived as promotional by some individuals, which may have added to the misunderstanding.Abdulmuqtaddirkhan (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Abdul Muqtaddir Khan[reply]

Delete. I don't see enough in the way of independent sources to regard it as notable -- as far as I can see references 6 to 9 are the same, accounting for almost half of all the references. Why should any flyover be regarded as notable? Only if something important happened on it. As it happens the city where I live (Marseilles, France) has a flyover about 3 km in length, the avenue Alexandre Fleming, over the district of Belle de Mai, and it's not the only one, but I'd be very surprised if anyone wanted Wikipedia articles about them. Athel cb (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but that's not made due to the rapes and the killings in Qasba_Aligarh_massacre Abdulmuqtaddirkhan (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)AbdulMuqtaddirKhan[reply]
Keep The sources currently in the article and even more in a BEFORE search do demonstrate it passes WP:GNG as a major infrastructure project, though it does need a rewrite. SportingFlyer T·C 01:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IREDES

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

Orphaned artcile without any verification of notability. Website is defunct, no evidence this is a notable standard, if even ever used. ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is promotional in tone about a nonprofit, and has been unsourced since its 2008 creation. Search turns up no independent coverage of subject. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 17:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Engineering, Computing, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some coverage in Gscholar mining journals [3] or [4] were the first two I pulled up. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This as well is about the "thing" [5] Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All seem like just passing mention, not any significant coverage or engagement. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant coverage for this. It exists/existed, but fails WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A search on Google news and Google scholar shows the standard is in use by multiple equipment and mining companies, and the website is live. It turns up in a mining glossary, and is mentioned in articles about mining robotics and smart mining. We have few articles about tools for data capture or analysis because it is hard to find independent in-depth information about them; even harder for a tool such as this used in industry rather than academics. It would not be an orphan if we had articles about some of the current modern methods in mining. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t keep articles on the basis of trivial mentions or appearances in directories. Please read WP: GNG. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found no WP:SIGCOV in any sources. Tgvarrt (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Want to Live (2015 film)

AfDs for this article:

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

The film doesn't seem to have notability. NameGame (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Iraq. NameGame (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kurdish cinema: or to the director if his page his kept. Not opposed to Keep if others find the film meets WP:NFIC as a production from Kurdistan. -Mushy Yank. 00:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets NFF with the coverage about production; filming, citation and link for review and news about the film verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendrea44 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Merge per Mushy Yank. If by some chance the director's article survives, I suppose it can be redirected there. Offhand I do vaguely remember hearing about this film but I can't remember the context. In any case, I did a search in English and Kurdish (via Google Translate). There really is almost nothing out there for this film - there was even less in Kurdish than there was in English. What I could find didn't really make me think that there was more. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of note - I accidentally put this on the director's AfD page. I was going to strike it, but decided to just remove it in order to avoid confusion given the large amount of sockpuppets that are plaguing that AfD. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First United Methodist Church (Midland, Texas)

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

This congregation has apparently been around a long time but I cannot find any evidence for its notability other than being the site of the Bush marriage, which really doesn't cut it. Mangoe (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:NCHURCH, individual congregations may be evaluated on GNG, which this one pass with SIGCOV in the Midland Reporter-Telegram ([6], [7]) plus the coverage in various George W and Laura Bush biographies. (Once this AfD is over, the page should be moved to reflect that it is no longer United Methodist.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified above, weak because its only one publication leaving aside the Bush bios, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karnaval (song)

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

Karnaval is not in and of itself more notable than any of the 29 other FiK 63 losers. Its article consists of: some basic information about the release, identical to that of other FiK entries that were commercially released; a short review section, using only one source that reviews many non-notable songs; information about Festivali i Këngës, which could equally apply to any other FiK entry; credits and personnel, track listing and release history, which are not independently notable. This *could* count as a reasonably detailed article but not more so than that of many other entries that are not given articles because it's understood that they are not notable. It hasn't been ranked on a chart, it hasn't won an award (second place is not an award, otherwise I'd like to see an article for Evita which actually won FiK), it hasn't been independently released by several notable artists, etc. Maybe deserving of an article had it won FiK and progressed to Eurovision, but it didn't. Toffeenix (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MyPhone myA18

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

No evidence of notability for this smartphone. I found pieces like this and this, but I think we would need a lot better sourcing to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Philippines. JTtheOG (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Transit Big Tree Garage

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

Article was twice moved to the mainspace without showing the slightest indication of notability. The only sources cited are a user-generated wiki. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Jersey. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NJ Transit Bus Operations#Divisions, facilities, and operators - I can't find any significant coverage in independent sources. (It's also arguably a copyvio of the CPTDB wiki.) Same goes for New Jersey Transit Kearny Point Garage. The related Category:NJ Transit Bus Garages and Template:NJ Transit Bus Garages And Yards should be deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve nominated the other two similar depot articles. JTtheOG (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tulika Mehrotra

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

Do not pass WP:AUTHOR or even WP:BASIC ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Uttar Pradesh, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a book review from Vogue India and an article from The Hindu on her books. Not too familiar with the English-language media landscape throughout India, but I think there's a good chance there is sufficient coverage that would make this pass WP:NAUTHOR (e.g., book reviews), especially considering the books were published by Penguin (one of the Big Five publishers). Bridget (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bridget Thank you for your efforts. I also conducted a search for relevant sources initially, but I did not find them to meet the notability criteria. Both sources are primarily interview-based descriptions. The piece in Vogue India is a one-time article by Ridhima Sud, and the The Hindu article also revolves around an interview. Neither of these, on their own, can establish notability. While publishing with Penguin is a significant accomplishment, it alone does not satisfy the notability requirements according to Wikipedia's standards. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 15:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:AUTHOR, interviews are not RS. Deriannt (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the interview / article format and whether or not the article contains facts vetted by a reliable source and observations that were independent of the subject. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a reference for her job (chief digital officer) and her marriage. I doubt they will make much difference. I'm not casting a vote on this one. Knitsey (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the additional work done on this article, I don't believe it qualifies for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is starting to look a lot better than when it was first nominated. Is anyone able to access the Business India article (or provide an archived link to it? Cielquiparle (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Dunya

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

This article is about the company that owns Daily Dunya, this is a directory reference, and this is a mention. Lacks direct and in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This subject does not seem notable. Fails WP:GNG. Mysecretgarden (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a member of the All Pakistan Newspapers Society (indicative, not determinative), and there's quite a lot of English-language analysis of its publications on GScholar[8]. From [9] found there, "The Urdu newspaper stories were extracted from the top five large circulation national dailies that is Daily Jang, Daily Dunya, Express, Daily Aaj, and Nawa-e-Waqt...". I presume that given the English language coverage evident that there would also be a level of coverage in Urdu. Its journalists have received awards[10][11] - reported on by unrelated sources. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 withdrawn‎. I am withdrawing this AFD. (non-admin closure) TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 California wildfires

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

Unnecessary article that goes against WP:CRYSTALBALL. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Fires will likely start in less then six months from now, I see no point in deleting this, then recreating it in such a short time. Oaktree b (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Next Brandenburg state election

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

While statute dictates the next state election must be before the end of 5 years, the date of this election is not set, and many variables could change the next election date. This leans toward WP:CRYSTAL. No objection to draftifying. Risker (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pep Love

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

Questionable notoriety. Only one source which is an interview, therefore a primary source.. not enough to establish notoriety SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to the Hierophyphics article, seems to be only known in relation to that group. Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Brown (footballer, born 1887)

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

Stub article about a little known soccer player with only three sources that don't make him seem particularly noteworthy. I also did some digging outside and I still didn't find much about him. The helper5667 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The helper5667 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Shellwood (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Awards

AfDs for this article:

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

After 15 years, this remains of borderline notability; pretty much all the sources are LDS-specific, and many of the references are not independent in any way. We're not quite in "coveted Silver Sow Award" territory; but close. Orange Mike | Talk 16:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Awards, and Latter Day Saints. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was keep.

Previous discussions: 2009-08 (closed as ✓ keep)

Related discussions: 2017-08 Traci Hunter Abramson (closed as ✓ keep)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Lots of coverage in the Deseret News, and some in scholarly journals [12], and here, but this is more of a mention [13]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Institutionalist political economy

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

This page largely duplicates the content of the Institutional Economics (IE) page. It states that Institutionalist political economy (IPE) builds upon institutional economics, but does not make clear how it does so. The only writers mentioned by name in the article are key institutionalist economists who already appear in the IE page: Veblen, Commons, Mitchell, etc. Even more significantly, the article does not provide clear evidence that IPE is an accepted term with a meaning that is distinct from IE. Among the cited references, only Ha-Joon Chang's 2002 article uses the phrase "Institutionalist Political Economy." The other articles seem to apply institutionalism in various senses to political economy, but do not establish a school of thought called "Institutionalist Political Economy." Googling "Institutionalist Political Economy" strengthens the sense that this is not an established school of thought: the first page results show a handful of articles by writers (especially Chang and Streeck) trying to claim the term in recent years, but no encyclopedia entries or news articles suggesting that their efforts have succeeded. Nor is it clear that Chang and Streeck are engaged in the same project or members of the same school. (Streeck 2010 does not even cite Chang 2002, for example.) Finally, to the extent that consistency across Wikipedia is a relevant consideration, I would note that I attempted to create a "Legal institutionalism" page about a year ago -- because there are, in fact, a number of writers who refer to themselves as "legal institutionalists" and who belong to a relatively coherent school of thought (Hodgson, Deakin, Pistor, etc.). A reviewer rejected the attempt. The reviewer's reasons would seem to apply even more strongly (or at least equally well) to the existing "Institutionalist political economy" than they did to the proposed "Legal institutionalism": "It's not clear to me that this is a coherent concept that really differs from Institutionalist political economy and Institutional economics. I understand that source #1 is trying to make that argument, but do the other sources? Some of the sources, such as #6 and #10, do not even contain the term legal institutionalism. And there are other sources that seem to use the term in a different way, as part of legal theory rather than economics." If a "Legal institutionalism" page is inappropriate, then a fortiori it seems as though an "Institutionalist political economy" page is inappropriate. RLHale (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Savage

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

This article on science fiction author Marshall Savage seems to fall short of WP's general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) for inclusion. To the extent that this author is notable, it is for his book, The Millennial Project which has its own WP article, and for founding the First Millennial Foundation, which is covered in the book's article. The body of this article is without references and is filled with minute autobiographical-type details. This article has had January 2024 {{BLP sources}} and {{original research}} tags for almost a year now. Dotyoyo (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dotyoyo (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Colorado, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything that can be sourced and is worth covering to The Millenial Project - couldn't find anything of substance that wasn't covering the book Iostn (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything worth merging into The Millenial Project, but others might find something worthy. The section called Writing career mentions an article he wrote, and a couple of incomplete projects he's worked on. But these are all unsourced and, IMO, non-notable. Dotyoyo (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The Millenial Project is not an existing article so it can't be a Merge target article. Any other arguments for what should happen with this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Millennial Project (note the correct spelling is with two ns). Though the subject may be notable, the vast majority of the article is unsourced and I don't see any sourced content worth merging. If sources are found, the redirect can be reverted. Jfire (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colette Kaminski

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only non-database source in the article is a student newspaper from the school the subject attended, and a search for additional sources came up empty. Please ping me if additional secondary sources can be found. Let'srun (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some pretty good coverage here under her nickname. JTtheOG (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]