Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

17 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 16	January 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Nancy Khalaf

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

Declined prod that was redirected. Another editor and myself opposed redirect here Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_9#Nancy_Khalaf LibStar (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Olympics. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud engineering

AfDs for this article:

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

Page on a very uncommon to non-existent discipline. It has been tagged for notability for many years, and just left. No attempt has been made to keep it current and encyclopedic, the main page cloud computing is far more current and useful. Best to remove, there is no useful information here we should be providing readers. This topic is really part of computer science & engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ligaturama (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cloud computing: I agree that this standalone article should not exist, as there is no need to maintain the same information in two separate places. However, a redirect seems like a pretty straightforward WP: ATD to me. HyperAccelerated (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify while the content is related to Cloud computing from the title alone I first suspected that this would about Cloud seeding. MKFI (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksei Kulashko

AfDs for this article:

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

No changes have been made since the previous deletion and doing a before search reveals nothing passing GNG or SPORTBASIC. Kline • talk • contribs 01:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Russia, and New Zealand. Kline • talk • contribs 01:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already brought to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several times national champion and national representative. Several non-trivial articles can be found in NZ chess publications, especially New Zealand Chess magazine. Occasional mentions in international chess books and periodicals, many of them unavailable on-line. Multiple mentions in "The Week In Chess", the standard weekly tournament chess report on the internet since the Usenet days and a trusted source. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source eval for the sources presented?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edd Gould

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

I've been pondering on nominating this for AfD, and I've finally come to the conclusion that this article is not eligible for standalone notability and should either be deleted or merged into Eddsworld (if that article is even notable at this point with such sketchy sourcing). A WP:BEFORE search brings up obituary-style sources and passing mentions in articles. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 01:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Europe, and United Kingdom. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 01:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 01:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 01:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while i agree Eddsworld isn't sourced properly (and that it probably is impossible to source well given the mainstream media snobness about early-2000s internet culture), this article in particular seems pretty well sourced to me. That his notability mostly comes from the continuation of his work by Ridgewell (ie he became notable mostly posthumously) is irrelevant because he is notable. I think EddsWorld should be merged into etiher TomSka or this article, but that's not the subject.

Themoonisacheese (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't very many in-depth sources (including in the article) but I think there are just enough to support a short article on Gould or Eddsworld. However, most of the coverage is overlapping between Gould and Eddsworld and I don't think there is enough to justify articles on both of them so I would support a merge to Eddsworld (or vice versa). Shapeyness (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eddsworld and Edd Gould have alot of disconnected stuff from eachother, and do have their own histories, alot of content involving the show and it's creator reference these articles, so they are definitely in use.

They should'nt be deleted or merged Charliephere (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANNO: X

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

None of the sources appear to be reliable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG / WP:NALBUM. Skyshiftertalk 22:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rodrigo Rossi as an alternative to deletion. ✗plicit 14:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for the ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Candiotto

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

Disputed PROD. Fails notability criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and Brazil. Shrug02 (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I see WP:SIGCOV in the sources already presented (Globoesporte, Gazeta Esportiva, O Tempo), the player herself is not very famous but meets the criteria for the article. A quick Google search also turns up a lot of content. Svartner (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is coverage of both her singles and doubles career on several major Brazilian sports portals: [1] [2] [3] Svartner (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Svartner. Article needs a lot of work on subjective language. There have been several PRODS and AI generated tags put on its creator's other articles this week.Canary757 (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I accept coverage has now been found but I stand by the point that she is non-notable and the article itself is like a fan page full of Peacocking and puff and very little by way of actual facts. Shrug02 (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've made a tentative start to address the peacock tag Shrug02, will do a thorough one later.Canary757 (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Junlper

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no substantial or notable coverage about the twitter account itself. All the sources talk about the twitter account glacially in passing from a group of posters, or goes into marginal coverage about a phrase they used. None of the cited references are substantially covering the page itself. Scuba 02:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kioumars Pourhashemi

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

Doesn't seem to be that important. All references are in passing or about his death, probably can be mentioned as a section in 2024 Battle of Aleppo Ladsgroup^overleg 17:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I made this article because I believe he was an important figure in a very important event that led to the downfall of Syria. History is important. Yesyesmrcool (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Iran. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can be considered as a soldier killed in action. He is merely a member of the IRGC forces involved in the 2024 Battle of Aleppo, but not a key member. Jeeputer ^Talk 17:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - on one hand, his rank of Second brigadier general (Iran) does not automatically pass WP:MIL, but he was not an ordinary soldier. On the other hand, he did get WP:SIGCOV in the Jerusalem Post and other reliable media. Bearian (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep(?) Quoting from this page: "Researchers Hassan Hassan and Michael Weiss argued that Pourhashemi's death -along with a number of other senior officers- greatly contributed to the collapse of the loyalist defenses of Aleppo." Sounds like a credible claim to lasting significance, though it depends on how much is being carried by the "other senior officers". Koopinator (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lukáš Hurt

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

Biography of a trade journalist and cannabis activist fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO for lack of WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. The sources in the article (and found in WP:BEFORE) are either WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, non-independent, or database sources. He also fails to qualify under any criterion of WP:NCHESS. (Translated from cz-wiki and no comment on notability standards there, but this falls short for en-wiki.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, and Czech Republic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Can you find any trade journalist and activist that actually meets WP:GNG? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like Rosa Parks? There are a ton of activists that were notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shuvalov

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

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov (recently unanimously deleted). WP:GUNREL (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#genealogy.eu), WP:OR, fails WP:GNG. ~~Rule of thumb: if a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik without a source, that's a red flag.~~ (No objection to keeping Category:Shuvalov family for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value). NLeeuw (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, and Russia. NLeeuw (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiably notable noble family in encyclopedias, eg "Шуваловы" . Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (in Russian). 1906.. Wiipedians simply don't care. --Altenmann >talk 18:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article in Russian Wikipedia has a ton of references, if one is interested in improving. "If a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik..." - this family never claimed great antiquity, for what I know, and it was never listed among Rurikids. Nevertheless it was the "crème de la crème" of the Russian aristocracy from the reign of Empress Elizabeth until the end of the empire. Ghirla^-трёп- 17:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. This is one of very few Russian noble families which don't claim descent from Rurik. NLeeuw (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read up on both Russian history and genealogy to make such odd claims. Ghirla^-трёп- 09:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no valid reason given for deletion; there's no wild claim in the article about descent from early modern times. In fact, it lists several verifiable notable members. Bearian (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Romodanovsky family

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

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov (recently unanimously deleted). WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR, fails WP:GNG. Rule of thumb: if a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik without a source, that's a red flag. (No objection to keeping Category:Romodanovsky family for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value). NLeeuw (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, and Russia. NLeeuw (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiably notable noble family in encyclopedias, eg "Ромодановские" . Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (in Russian). 1906.. Wiipedians simply don't care. --Altenmann >talk 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand what is questioned in this nomination. The notability of one of the top boyar families? "If a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik without a source, that's a red flag" - utter tosh. The family has been extinct for 300 years, so it does not claim anything. But every source on Russian genealogy (starting from the Gosudarev Rodoslovets of 1555) confirms that the Romodanovsky family is indeed Rurikid. Ghirla^-трёп- 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are added to the article and written up in context. Potentially this is notable, but right now it's unsourced. I'm willing to change my mind. Bearian (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is actually a famous family that deserves a separate page, as follows from Russian language sources on this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The most famous representative of this family was of course Fyodor Romodanovsky, "a monstrum by appearance, a vicious tyrant by character". He liked personally beheading people, sometimes several in a row. My very best wishes (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obolensky

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

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov (recently unanimously deleted). WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR, fails WP:GNG. Rule of thumb: if a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik without a source, that's a red flag. (No objection to keeping Category:Obolensky family for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value). NLeeuw (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, and Russia. NLeeuw (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiably notable noble family in encyclopedias, eg "Оболенские, княжеский род" . Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (in Russian). 1906.. Wiipedians simply don't care. --Altenmann >talk 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noble families, especially princely families are by definition notable, as their members are listed in official genealogies and studied by multitude of genealogists. It is irrelevant if the princes Obolensky were actually descendants of Rurik, Imperial Russia considered them as such, as exemplified by their use of the title prince and their inclusion in the Velvet Book.
I read Nederlandse Leeuw's rant on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov. It reads like an anti-royalist, French revolutionary attack on nobility in general. Unfortunately the Ancien Régime was non-egalitarian. Social status and thus notability followed family lines. There are corresponding family articles is six other languages. The Russian language article list about 30 family members with Wikipedia articles. The corresponding category has 106 articles and 15 subcategories. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I may have employed much sarcasm in my rationale on the preceding AfD, but I write about royalty and nobility all the time. E.g. look at my recent article Olgovichi. The issue I have is with unsourced or poorly sourced claims about where certain families came from that are just unencyclopedic rubbish and fail WP:GNG. NLeeuw (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Petri Krohn. We have lots of articles about notable families. In the old days, the aristocracy had all the political, social, and economic power. One could say that we are living through similar circumstances. In any case, there are literally dozens of notable people who have this last name, and the longstanding consensus is to bunch them into an article as well as a category. Also, before proposing deleting an article, see if it can be expanded from other languages and do at least a basic Internet search. Bearian (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I write about royalty and nobility all the time. E.g. look at my recent article Olgovichi. The issue I have is with unsourced or poorly sourced claims about where certain families came from that are just unencyclopedic rubbish and fail WP:GNG. NLeeuw (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The current "keep" arguments are rather weak: just being a noble family is not enough for notability, we need multiple independent sources that treat the subject in-depth. A listing is not enough. Perhaps the articles in other languages provide some useful sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

House of Lobanov-Rostovsky

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

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov (recently unanimously deleted). WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR, fails WP:GNG. Rule of thumb: if a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik without a source, that's a red flag. (No objection to keeping Category:Lobanov-Rostovsky family for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value). NLeeuw (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, and Russia. NLeeuw (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Yes, there was this noble family, but it seems there is no in-depth coverage besides genealogy lists. They do have rurikid origin, but I am not sure it counts to claim for notability. --Altenmann >talk 18:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The family is listed in principal families in the European book with clear description of its coat of arms [4] and of course in the Russian Velvet Book by the author Aleksey Lobanov-Rostovsky, a familiy member himself, hence passes GNG. The family has a museum dedicated to them [[5]] and the palace in St. Petersburg underlines the notability. Of course the article needs some cleanup to have proper references.

Moreover the Yamagata–Lobanov Agreement gives the family name quite some name recognition. Axisstroke (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, (a) listing does not count for WP:GNG, which requires in-depth coverage. (b) Notability not inherited and Yamagata–Lobanov Agreement is irrelevant for an article about noble family. --Altenmann >talk 21:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The family is a principal family hence by definition notable as declared both on the Velvet book and other listings. Axisstroke (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, in Wikipedia we have our own criteria for notability. Nobility listings contain thousands of petty noble families. In Poland 20% of population used to be szlachta. In Russian Empire every petty warlord on a hill in Caucasus Mountains was given a title of knyaz during "appeasement" of the area. And so on. Merely listing is insufficient to establish notability in en-wiki. --Altenmann >talk 04:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - as noted many times at AfD and other fora, you need to take a look at the sources on other languages' Wikipedia articles on the topic. You also can't take one isolated fact that needs citation as a reason to delete. I'd recommend advocates of keeping the article substantially to add the sources, in context, so that it passes [WP:HEY]]. Bearian (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, your vote violates WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN not to say WP:AGF (suggesting lack of due diligence). If one looks at the ruwiki article, nothing there indicates in-depth coverage beyond genealogy books (Russian: . Родословный сборник, родословная книга. Родословная роспись, Генеалогическое древо. Even "Лобановы-Ростовские" . Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (in Russian). 1906. is little beyond name-throwing. --Altenmann >talk 04:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  This has been tagged for GNG since 2017 by someone else. It's not just me saying this now.
  And als Altenmann points out, the articles in other languages are essentially just as bad:
  - lv:Lobanovi–Rostovski is WP:UNSOURCED
  - et:Lobanov-Rostovski is 2 WP:SPSes and 1 book from 1854 (WP:AGEMATTERS)
  - de:Lobanow-Rostowski has 1 WP:FAIL, because the claim Die Familie, eine Seitenlinie der Rurikiden, soll auf Juri Dolgoruki (1090–1157), Fürst von Rostow, Großfürst der Kiewer Rus und Gründer von Moskau, ein Sohn des Kiewer Großfürsten Wladimir Monomachs (1053–1125), zurückgehen. Sein Nachkomme war Fürst Wasilko Konstantinowitsch von Rostow (1208–1238). is not supported by this website where you can buy a painting (!) of 'Der Heilige Fürst Wassili Konstantinowitsch von Rostow'; plus 1 book from 1894 (WP:AGEMATTERS)
  - ru:Лобановы-Ростовские has
    1 collection of manuscripts from somewhere in the 17th century ru:Родословные росписи конца XVII века, which is just plain WP:PRIMARY
    
    1 book from 1776 (! WP:AGEMATTERS)
    
    1 book from 1787 (! WP:AGEMATTERS)
    
    1 book from 1810 (! WP:AGEMATTERS) ru:Родословная книга М. Г. Спиридова
    
    1 book from 1854 (WP:AGEMATTERS)
    
    1 book from 1886 ru:Родословный сборник русских дворянских фамилий (WP:AGEMATTERS)
    
    1 book from 1890 (WP:AGEMATTERS)
    
    A museum deadlink
    
    A worldportrait.org deadlink
    
    An archived press release / advertisment for visiting a museum
    
    1 book from 1991 that is not actually used (no in-line citations)
    
    1 book from 2011 that is not actually used (no in-line citations), and appears to be a reprint of WP:PRIMARY ru:Родословная книга М.А. Оболенского from c. 1600 (!)
    
    1 entry in the Russian Biographical Dictionary of 1905 that is not actually used (no in-line citations)
    
    1 1906 Brockhaus and Efron passing mention which Altenmann already assessed as little beyond name-throwing; and finally
    
    4 unreliable WP:SELFPUB genealogy websites, including the notoriously unreliable WP:ANCESTRY.COM.
  In short, it's a lot of hot air. The few relatively modern sources that might be reliable are not even used, are reprints of WP:PRIMARY sources that are not critically examined, or provide so little information that they do not constitute WP:SIGCOV. NLeeuw (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Santuḷā

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

An unsourced page about a regional Indian dish. It fails WP:GNG for lack of sourcing (in WP:BEFORE search, all I found were blogs, some YouTube videos and other WP:USERGENERATED sources). It also fails WP:NOTHOWTO; Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Draftified a few days ago and then returned to mainspace by the creator with no improvements, so draftification is not an option. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Odisha. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noam Ross

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

I'm not sure this article meets WP:GNG. Ross is only mentioned in passing in a small number of secondary sources and none of those secondary sources are explicitly about him. Velayinosu (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Science. Velayinosu (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree that I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass, but there might be a WP:NPROF pass for his research work. His citation count is decent, and his work on things like consulting on COVID-19 modelling and creating some very widely used R packages might get him close to C4/C7. I'm not sure the case is strong enough, but am interested to hear what others think. MCE89 (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, COVID-19, Medicine, California, New York, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Meko

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. The subject lacks significant independent sources to establish notability, as most sources are primary, local, or promotional. The achievements mentioned (e.g., DJ performances, single releases) are insufficient to demonstrate notability. The article's promotional tone further detracts from its encyclopedic value. Deletion is recommended unless substantial, reliable sources are provided. Jaypung (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The user Injusticegod edited the same article on Simple English Wikipedia Marko Meko and subsequently recreated the article here on Standard English Wikipedia. This raises concerns about a COI or UPE. Please consider this context during the discussion. Jaypung (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Egypt. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Vaughn Blake

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

Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC/ WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, American football, Tennessee, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Rossi (footballer, born 1982)

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

This AfD might be the same issue as Juan Alberto Ramírez that was nominated back in November. Even by searching for his name in combination of clubs he played for, I did not find any significant coverage of Paolo Rossi (footballer, born 1982) to meet WP:GNG. He only played one match for Torino in 2001/02 season, one of the professional football clubs in Italy, before moving to amateur leagues then disappeared for over two decades. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Italy. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – The fact that he is a homonym hinders the search, but it is still possible to confirm the athlete's career at the first levels of Italian football. [6], [7], [8]. Svartner (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Sources above from Svartner are 2 x database and 1 x profile from the league he played in. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ilcalcio provides detailed information, but I agree that more informative sources are missing. Svartner (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Those are database sources which do not count towards significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly didn't read the source, or are you confused with Tutto Calciatore. There is a good coverage of the athlete's career and not just statistical data. The problem is that as I explained, the player is a homonym, so additional sources to ensure WP:SIGCOV are harmed/difficult to search. It's a more complex case than usual. Svartner (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner, Il Calcio is AI-generated. JoelleJay (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete—Although I agree that the sources listed above are "not nothing," they are not WP:SIGCOV in my view. Anwegmann (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think we have the bare minimum of sourcing. I did find some passing mentions in an Italian source search which are definitely him from his Serie B days. SportingFlyer T·C 03:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the exact references? Passing mentions obviously don't count towards significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Il Calcio is clearly an AI-generated summary of his stats (as are all profiles on that site; GPTzero gave all the ones I tested 100% probability of being AI-generated). LegaPro is a blog network, and anyway it's a routine transfer announcement of mostly quotes. Tutto Calciatori is a database. JoelleJay (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups

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

Fails WP:NFILM. After multiple draftifications of the name variations this has been created under, an attempt at a redirect, now here we are. Nothing notable about the production and film still has no release date. Was scheduled for April and now nothing is confirmed. Would suggest a redirect or draftify but again, those WP:ATD have been explored. CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Previous deletion discussion here under one of the alternative names. Also see Draft:Toxic (2025 Film) (declined in November), Toxic (Indian film), Draft:Toxic (film) and Draft:Toxic (2025 Indian film). Other drafts have been merged or deleted under other names and I cannot find the history of those at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the main difference from the past AfD is that the film has commenced and completed filming. The big question though is if the coverage is in-depth enough to pass NFF. Unfortunately a lot of pre-release coverage (unless it's some majorly huge blockbuster) tends to be based on a couple of press releases. India related films seem to be particularly prone to this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I will say in this version's defense, this is better sourced than the one declined at AfC and the one that was previously deleted at AfD. It's all going to depend on whether the sourcing gives a good depth of coverage. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100% better referenced. The issue, which you talked about, is the quality of the press. A lot of this is churnalism, pre-release promotion, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I don't see significant coverage about the production and since it has not yet been released (and as of now we don't know if it will - the best clue is "possibly" December 2025) so there isn't even a review for it. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously an upcoming film from any industry won't have reviews and production details will be limited to avoid spoilers. Release date changes are common, even for Hollywood films such as Mickey 17, which had it's release date changed thrice (no "significant" production details are available for that film as well, and yet, that article has existed since principal photography began 3 years ago in 2022). Coming to Toxic, it has similar coverage beyond press-releases, including in the American media such as Variety, Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, to name a few. Not that Indian cinema needs validation from the West, but that sadly seems to be the case with Wikipedia. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Indian cinema shouldn't need validation from the West. However, it must still have significant coverage that shows how it is notable. Mickey 17 is an WP:OSE argument. Looking at the press for this film which you cited above, they are all based on press releases and are simple churnalism. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing even the American media houses like Variety, Deadline Hollywood, and The Hollywood Reporter of paid "churnalism" when it comes to reporting on Indian cinema? Also, OSE is an essay and not a policy, and as valid as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am making that accusation. But, keep in mind that churnalism doesn't need to be "paid." I think you are making an accusation that I am pulling things out of my rear with the IDONTLIKEIT comment. If so, please remember WP:CIVIL. If I read that wrong, then my apologies in advance. As far as OSE, one cannot dismiss it just for being an essay. It is widely cited and applies regularly in deletion discussions.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IDONTLIKEIT is as "widely cited" as OSE and is not a CIVIL violation. Even so, my statement was "OSE is an essay and not a policy, and as valid as IDONTLIKEIT", which in no way was directed *at* you. I have been perfectly civil with you, so please do not accuse me of doing things that I'm not doing. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misinterpret what I said. I never accused you of being uncivil. I merely explained how I interpreted what you said and actually apologized in advance if I read it wrong (written words are hard to interpret at times). --CNMall41 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've taken a look at the sourcing and offhand, I have to say that I'm going to say that I'm kind of undecided on whether or not this passes NFF. The basic question we need to answer here is this: if the film were to never release, is the current sourcing enough to pass NFF?

The film industry in India is particularly prone to churnalism. That's kind of a fact of life, so when it comes to sourcing we can't just look at the quantity and publications - we have to look at the content as well. Offhand, I can't help but notice that the coverage is predominantly pre-filming. There's a decent variety of coverage here, as it's not too overly repetitive (ie, not all based on the same handful of press releases). However I'd like to see more coverage of the filming process, as it's not really resolving that basic question/concern. The Variety source is OK, however coverage of trailers tends to be seen as routine unless we have some sort of reaction to the trailer - like a review of sorts. That's missing in this Variety source, however I will note that I found it in this Collider source.

Offhand I'd like to look for more here. It's heartening to see that coverage for this is still rolling in, even with the absence of a set release date. It's not a situation where filming ended and there's just almost complete silence - the current coverage does give off the impression that it will release eventually. The question here is whether or not any of that coverage contains sourcing that could help show this passes NFF. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This film clearly meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for films (NFF), thanks to the wide range of independent and credible sources covering it. Outlets like Variety and Collider are reputable and provide detailed information about the film's production and promotion. Yes, a lot of the coverage so far focuses on pre-filming, but that's completely normal for any film, especially one that's building buzz. Early coverage is part of how films establish their presence in the public eye. And here's the thing, as mentioned by ReaderofthePack, the coverage is still coming in, even without a set release date. There are no signs or credible reports indicating that the film won't release, so assuming otherwise would be speculative and just assumptions. On the contrary, the ongoing and consistent media attention suggests strong interest and momentum behind the project. The argument about 'churnalism' in the Indian film industry also feels overly broad. Sure, some media outlets might lean promotional, but you can't paint all coverage with the same brush. Notable global names like Variety, Deadline, Hollywood Reporter and Collider have written about this film. Finally, Wikipedia shouldn't focus on predicting the future and focus documenting what's notable right now. And based on the sourcing and interest this film has already generated, it's clearly notable. Shecose (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not all coverage is painted with the same brush. However, it is not an overly broad assertion since the community has come to a consensus and created an information section about it called WP:NEWSORGINDIA. It is also concerning that you have bludgeoned the process in order to help promote the film. Wikipedia is not here as a promotional tool for film studios. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We both edit warred to maintain our views regarding this article. Repeatedly re-draftifying the article after objections from others and redirecting it thrice despite being edited by multiple editors without any discussion, is also a significant concern, also shared by others in the 3RR. You have also acted in a hostile manner towards me by reporting me in various places for questioning your actions while preaching cooperation and civility to others (as above). Now that we are here, let's focus on discussing the article and its notability. The article clearly meets the notability criteria based on the provided references. Also, I'm not sure how much you understand about films and fandom culture in India. Fans often get excited about their stars and their films, leading them to search and edit in this space. However, this doesn't necessarily mean they are promoting the film. Shecose (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian phonk

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

Expired then contested PROD. Concern was: The article's text is overly promotional and almost all claims failed verification from cited sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Brazil. UtherSRG (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phonk#Subgenres – As WP:ATD. The rhythm is not notable for its own article, but it can be mentioned in the aforementioned section. Svartner (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep or soft redirect to wikt:Brazilian phonk. Phonk editors rejected it within the subgenre section. It will probably never be there. Maybe in Funk carioca. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Anglican Church of North America

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

I find no evidence that this organization passes WP:GNG or ever did. Its website is inactive, but archived versions ([9], [10]) have no listing of member congregations, and it appears that if it ever did have congregations they must have been very few. It is not mentioned in the two standard reference works on American Christian denominations (Kurian & Lamport or Melton, and Melton includes even the very smallest denominations). There is a single mention of it in a New York Times article about a church it supposedly recognized in Venezuela. It existed, that much is true, but beyond that anything that can be said about it fails WP:V. It doesn't reach GNG and it doesn't even reach the looser threshold described at WP:RELIGIONOUTCOMES. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Texas. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 00:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Weinreich

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

None of the articles are directly about the subject. Coverage is trivial. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to SixDegrees.com mentioned in [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], as one of the earlier social networking entrepreneurs. Andre🚐 07:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks significant coverage

Firecat (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helicarrier

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

This fails WP:SIGCOV. Most of the references are listicles that are either unreliable or not significant outside of discussions of Marvel and [S.H.I.E.L.D.]]. This could be redirected to S.H.I.E.L.D. with any passing mentions in sources that can be salvaged. Jontesta (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with the vehicles section of Features of the Marvel Universe in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Moog Model 15

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

Wikipedia is not an advertizing tool. Information about this app can live as one line in the Moog wikipedia page and doesn't need a dedicated page. Warmonger123 (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid reason for deletion has been given: the article is not promotional in the sense meant on Wikipedia and, per WP:NOMERGE, a merge should be avoided if "the separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles". While I'm not the biggest fan of stubs, the following significant coverage from reliable sources shows a pass of WP:GNG and the possibility of expansion: Engadget: [17] [18] [19], Wired: [20], Sound on Sound: [21], MusicRadar: [22] [23], MusicTech: [24] [25], Sonicstate: [26] [27]. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 21:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, the article can be copyedited if the problem is promo. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]