Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

27 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 26	January 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Put Your Hand Inside the Puppet Head

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. The article mostly cites primary sources such as interviews which do not establish notability. The secondary sources cited here only discuss the song briefly, and I cannot find any RSes that discuss the song in-depth. The article is sourced okay, but it does not pass WP:GNG, so it should be merged into They Might Be Giants (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. I noted in the bundle discussion that I think this one has sufficient referencing to meet NSONG and/or GNG. It's close, though, and I doubt there's much to merge, so redirect if there's consensus against notability. --BDD (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alka Tiwari

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

It may warrant deletion due to insufficient evidence of notability under Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. WP:NOTCV. This is a promotional page of the entity WP:PROMO. B-Factor (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, India, and Jharkhand. B-Factor (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Waab station

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

Redirect to Gold Line (Doha Metro). The only thing approaching WP:SIGCOV I found was this, most of which isn't even specifically about the station in question. JTtheOG (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Qatar. JTtheOG (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beyblade X season 1

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

WP:REDUNFORK of List of Beyblade X episodes

Also nominating the second season for the same reason:

Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's a redundant fork. There are only two seasons, so having both seasons only under List of Beyblade X episodes would be the wisest move. Eelipe (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.

Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Miminity! Just came to my notice today that both the articles were put on deletion. I have made few changes to the two articles. I also did some changes to this article, fearing it may fall under WP:REDUNFORK. Let me know your thoughts on it. Thank you and have a great day! VizDsouz (talk) 03:31, 14 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!} 08:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per MOS:TVEPISODELIST (For very lengthy series, generally 80+ episodes, it may be necessary to break the episode list into individual season or story arc lists. and If this is done, the main list of episodes should still contain the entire episode list, appropriately sectioned, without the episode summaries.) Beyblade X currently has 64 episodes and will eventually have 80 episodes. Media Mender 📬✍🏻 10:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Beyblade X season 1 And rename page as simply Beyblade X, just like other programs with several seasons they should just be on one page. OhNoKaren (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Currently at 64 episodes, the episode count is expected to rise beyond 80. For such a series, having these two articles will be reliable in the future. VizDsouz (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MaxPlay Classic Games Volume 1

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

Unreferenced article which was formerly BLAR'd into a page where this game compilation was not mentioned. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG from my searches for sources. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are references on the talk page which should be sufficient to mention it at Datel, but aren't enough from WP:GNG. That feels like a more useful redirect target even if it's not currently mentioned (note that CodeJunkies redirects to Action Replay currently). --Pokechu22 (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not demonstrate sufficient notability and not a good redirect either. MimirIsSmart (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Datel#MaxPlay_Classic_Games_Volume_1 (now mentioned there, and a more fitting target than Action Replay. --Pokechu22 (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From talk page

Nintendo Official Magazine had a review of MaxPlay.^[1] (Unsurprisingly, it's fairly negative.)

There's also a mention in PSX Extreme which seems more about the disc being hard to dump than the game itself.^[2] It's probably not useful to establish notability, but it is interesting to see a reference to Datel discs being weird in a print magazine (I personally know this affects other Datel discs but it doesn't seem to be mentioned there).

All other results I could find were in advertisements. There probably is at least one more magazine review in something that hasn't been digitized (e.g. CUBE) but currently there definitely isn't enough for an article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokechu22 (talk • contribs) 01:48, October 12, 2020 (UTC)

References

^ Scott, Dean (July 2004). "Review: Max Play 01". Nintendo Official Magazine. No. 142. p. 97. ISSN 0965-4240.
^ Yohko; Teruo (April 2005). "szara strefa". Hardkor. PSX Extreme [pl] (in Polish). No. 92. p. 77. ISSN 1429-172X.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Pokechu22 and WP:ATD. I don't see WP:SIGCOV, but this can be mentioned somewhere, as it does verifiably exist. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or Redirect? Let's also get a consensus on the redirect target too.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajib Kro

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

No SIGCOV sources were found, failing GNG, and there are no significant roles in these films, failing WP:FILMMAKER. GrabUp - Talk 08:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electrum Bitcoin Wallet

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

The sources show that the subject is not yet notable for an article Patre23 (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Companies. Patre23 (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, such an article already exists in the German Wiki. This doesn't mean that the Electrum is notable but at least shows a demand for this. I also wish to translate the article to other languages that I know. The point of the article is to have a more neutral information about the critical software.

Even after 16 years since release of Bitcoin there are not so many of wallets available.

The ideal wallet also should be open source, community driven and cross platform. Current options are:

Bitcoin Core (Qt) which downloads the full blockchain, too complicated for most users.

Cake Wallet which is based on Electron and the Electrum which is fully cross platform. It even available in PlayStore and F-Droid.

The Electrum exist since 2011 and very well known. It introduced many innovations like simplified validation, seed phrases and Lighting. It also a base for the official NameCoin wallet.

It's endorsed on the bitcoin.org https://bitcoin.org/en/wallets/desktop/windows/electrum/

Please clarify why you think this software is not important.

I'll try to add more back links. Stokito (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although this article should be rewritten, there is some literature investigating the features and security of Electrum. [1], [2], [3] . Less significant coverage: [4], [5], [6]. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Man, It's So Loud in Here

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2006 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG. The article is a very short stub that only cites two primary sources. The song did chart, and there are a few RSes that discuss the song (e.g. the ABC); however, none of them have enough coverage for a standalone article. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:03, 12 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!} 23:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental Film (song)

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2004 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. This article is mostly cited to primary sources (including an interview), as well as a review of the album. I cannot find any reliable sources that discuss the song in depth. This article should be redirected to The Spine (album), and the adequately sourced content could be merged into that article. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:52, 12 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!} 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S-E-X-X-Y

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2005 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. The article is a very short stub that only cites two primary sources. RSes only mention the song briefly in recaps of concerts. This should redirect to Factory Showroom. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(She Was A) Hotel Detective

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2004 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. The article mostly cites primary sources such as interviews and does not cite any reliable secondary sources. The article is only briefly covered in RSes (e.g. Pitchfork and this tongue-in-cheek mention by A.V. Club) and does not have enough coverage for an article. This should redirect to They Might Be Giants (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snail Shell (song)

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This song does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. The article cites only one RS, which only mentions the song briefly; the other sources are primary or user-generated. I can only find RSes that mention the song briefly, mostly in recaps of concerts. Article should redirect to John Henry (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Statue Got Me High

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2006 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. The only RSes cited in this article are on chart positions; the other sources are primary or user-generated. Secondary sources only mention the song briefly (e.g. PopMatters). Article should redirect to Apollo 18 (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BlackHatWorld

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

I don's see any reliable sources to provide notability. Note that the Yahoo source is from NewMediaWire, which seems to specifically write PR articles. Janhrach (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Technology, Internet, and Websites. Janhrach (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ – BlackHatWorld has a surprising number of hits on google scholar. It is apparently well-known within its field. Most papers only have 30–40 words of usable information, which I don't consider to be significant coverage. However, there are some exceptions. Honor among thieves: A common's analysis of cybercrime economies (cited 32 times, published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) has 150–200 words of potentially usable information. Profiling underground merchants based on network behavior (also published by IEEE) has an 86-word blurb explaining what "BlackHat World" is. I also found a conference paper titled Computer-Supported Cooperative Crime that may or may not be significant coverage – I can't access the whole thing. I can keep looking, but so far, I'm leaning towards keep. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 20:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- After taking a more thorough look, I am less convinced that this meets either the general notability guidelines or website-specific notability guidelines. Everything from APWG is peer-reviewed, but both articles from that conference only count as one source. The other scholarly sources either have the same authors (so again count as one source) or only have trivial coverage. I can't access the kernelmag.dailydot.com source, but based on how it's used, it doesn't look like it has significant coverage. The Ungagged source, which I also can't access, probably isn't independent. Coverage by Paris Martineau is insignificant. If ~~both~~ Tech Business News ~~and Search Engine Round Table (aka Barry Schwartz)~~ were reliable sources, then BlackHatWorld would meet notability guidelines. However, I do not believe this to be the case. So, regrettably, I am changing to delete. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 04:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've stricken my comment about Search Engine Roundtable because coverage in this source is not significant. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 23:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This website is known to promote a lot of online scams, and it's been getting worse in recent years according to a 2024 HackerNoon article that I've just added. For the purpose of educating people about the history and reputation of this "scammer's paradise" it might be a good idea to keep the article for now. --Honos582 (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion should be relisted soon. @Honos582: I agree with you that the article is useful. The question we're trying to determine is whether BlackHatWorld is notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notable, which tends to be a higher bar than the ordinary definition of "notable". For an explanation of why these guidelines exist, see this explanation. We don't want to pass along gossip about a topic – we want a balanced overview of the topic. To do this, we need at least two (though preferably three) reliable sources that have significant coverage of the topic and are independent of the subject. All of these criteria must be met by multiple sources.

We have found several independent sources that have significant coverage, but it is my opinion that only two of them are reliable. Here comes a rather lengthy analysis of every source that I can I access that I believe to have arguably significant coverage. I apologize for its length.

In my analysis, every study with Sadia Afroz as a co-author counts as one source because these studies will all have the same bias (and so don't make our understanding of BlackHatWorld more balanced). A lot of these studies are published through the IEEE and claim to be peer-reviewed. Coverage is significant.

A second scholarly source is published by MDPI. This publisher is hit-or-miss. The actual journal is Mathematics. Looking at the journal's stats, it could very well be reliable. At 70 words, coverage is arguably significant.

One source is an opinion piece published in Tech Business News. I can't find a discussion of the source on Wikipedia, but it has the word "blog" in the url. Here is that website's policy on contributions. I don't think this source is reliable for statements of fact. At best, it is a newspaper blog.

Regarding hackernoon, there was a discussion involving hackernoon in 2019. There seemed to be a consensus that hackernoon was not a reliable source.

Regarding the Huffpost source, see this entry on the frequently discussed source index.

Regarding an article in The Tribune, it's hard to be certain this is independent. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 22:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Satandisk

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

I can't find coverage outside of forums, even there it seems to be a niche gadget. Jay Cubby 05:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Technology, and Computing. Jay Cubby 05:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Singdarin

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

I've lived in Singapore for more than ten years. "Singdarin" is not a thing. Clubette (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Clubette (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A quick google scholar search for "Singdarin" comes up with 17 results, and a google search finds only 124 results (with similar results ommited). If Singdarin is a thing, it is safe to assume that the good sources are not in English. Machine translation is pretty useless with this word. Anyone who knows Mandarin, Malay or Tamil might be able to find some better sources.

The sources on this article are also really bad. The word Singdarin is mentioned in almost none of the sources, and when it is, it is used as shorthand for Singaporean Mandarin. Clubspike2 (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of baseball nicknames

AfDs for this article:

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

The list is full of OR and tagged as such for 13 years now. Not every single nickname need be included in this list. If a nickname is legit, it belongs in the player's article. "Mr. October" is a well documented nickname; "the Milkman" is not. An alternative to deletion would be to cull the list dramatically and merge/redirect to List of sportspeople with nicknames#Baseball. Rgrds. -- BX (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Baseball, and Lists. BX (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I don't think it is WP:OR - almost every nickname has a source, and the fact there are published books on the topic (in the article) means it's probably a notable list. It is in desperate need of cleanup, though. SportingFlyer T·C 06:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Man's World (periodical)

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

Don't think it passes WP:GNG, only a casual mention in one independent secondary source (The Guardian), can't really find any additional secondary sources via Google search Reflord (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tabaghat Aa'lam Al-Shia

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

I am unable to identify any third-party references to this work that qualifies this work as notable under WP:NBOOK. --Eelipe (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Chambers

AfDs for this article:

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

As to someone who is very familiar with the Resident Evil series, I feel like Rebecca is pretty much on borderline when it comes to notability. I was hesitating about this article and asked Piotrus. [7] is the only sigcov, while this one [8] just only states that the creator hates her. Others were just listicles/rankings and passing mentions. I couldn't find even more sources per WP:BEFORE. I know this is GA, but I don't think this one passes unlike Barry Burton. I do promise that I will bring this article back from the dead after the rumored Resident Evil Zero remake is dropped. I want your opinions about this if this should be kept or merged. No hard feelings! Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Having looked at the sources that mention her in their headings, in addition to the SyFy source linked above, only [9] from TheGamer can be argued to be SIGCOV-meeting, but it is also a crappy listicle. So yes, this is very borderline, GNG-wise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Resident Evil characters. Given the nominator's extensive history with Resident Evil characters (Nice job with all the FAs, btw), I trust they have done adequate research and a BEFORE on the character, and the current sources seem largely trivial. The few non-trivial sources, as well as what conception info exists, can be merged to the character's entry on the list as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The WP:SIGCOV does not seem to be there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CupidDB

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

Open source project with no claim to notability, article was created by the project author.

By the numbers:

7 commits
4 stars on GitHub
1 contributor

Brandon (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Brandon (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brandon,

Thank you for reviewing my article and providing feedback regarding its notability. I understand that the project was marked for deletion due to having only 7 commits, 4 stars on GitHub, and one contributor, which you mentioned might be too small to meet notability standards.

However, I would like to clarify that the project has actually been worked on by multiple contributors, including my coworkers, and there have been several additional commits prior to its GitHub release that were not reflected in the current commit count. The project is also being used in production as part of the data caching infrastructure at a notable bank in Thailand. I believe these contributions, combined with the project's history, may provide a fuller picture of its development and significance.

In light of this, I’d also appreciate it if you could provide further clarification on what level of GitHub stars or other criteria would be considered sufficient to meet the notability standards. I want to ensure that I can revisit the article in the future, should it be deleted, with the necessary improvements and information.

Thank you for your time and understanding. I look forward to your feedback. I'm very new to Wikipedia, so your guidance would be highly appreciated.

Cheers! Wiamsuri (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's definition of notability requires significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources (e.g. news media, books written by authors who have no connection to the project). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: you should generally not edit about topics that you have a personal connection to. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent coverage, so fails WP:GNG. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't see any independent coverage, and it seems extraordinary unlikely that such coverage would exist for a minor open source project like this one. MCE89 (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malibu Feed Bin

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

random store whose only claim to notability is that it was destroyed. harrz ^talk 01:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and California. harrz ^talk 01:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 02:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article was recently created, because this was a family pet food store in Malibu for more than half a century. It's now a statistic as of one of the businesses destroyed in the current Southern California wildfires. — Maile (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable as evidenced in articles like this and this where the subject is the primary topic. Also, with all due respect to the nominator, please keep in mind that the person who created the article is still relatively new to Wikipedia. WP:BITE does apply here and we should take that into consideration before launching an AfD (or a PROD). --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is notable; I'm finding quite a few sources pre-dating the fires just from a basic search. The page just needs work to include them. As pointed out above, a new user created the page, and treating newcomers with patience includes giving them a minute to figure things out. -- Kylara (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Susovan Roy

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable actor, doesn't passes WP:NACTOR. I got a mail from User:Xegma, they written, Hi Taabi, this is my article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susovan_Roy why you tag deletion for it. Please remove it. I'm that actor pls withdraw it. They also closed the discussion and drafted the page. It's a clear WP:COI. The closing admin can ask me for the proof of their mail, I'll be happy to share. Taabii (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and West Bengal. Taabii (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting here as I did at ANI, Xegma is p-blocked from this discussion to avoid further disruption. They're welcome to contribute elsewhere. Star Mississippi 15:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per their roles in those two series "Anandamoyee Maa", "Korapakhi" and modeling works with several known brands.HeMahon (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} — HeMahon (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Blogs19 (talk · contribs). Spicy (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Roles mentioned above are not significant roles. Notability is not inherited from notable brands he may have worked for. Sourcing is dodgy PR pieces pretending to be real articles. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These five sources are 1. IBC24, 2. Navabharat, 3. Krishijagran, 4. Pardaphash, 5. Meghalayamonitor looks independent reporting by their own staffs. 185.48.248.126 (talk) 07:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source 3 is written by "reporter" and barely a half page, I can't open source 5... The rest look about as unhelpful. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aerography (meteorology)

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

Stub that has been unsourced since its creation and largely consists of definitions of terms that have their own pages. Noah, BSBA^Talk 00:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- (strong) -- uncited stub. As a (former) military meteorologist, the only time I've ever even heard this term is in-reference to the U.S. Navy's 'aerographer's mate' rating. My policy argument would likely be NOTDICT.

MWFwiki (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay of Overwatch

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

There is a consensus at the Video Games WikiProject that we shouldn't create this type of WP:REDUNDANTFORK between a game and its gameplay (the same thing). This is already covered elsewhere, and otherwise violates WP:VGSCOPE. The characters section has already been turned into an article at Characters of the Overwatch franchise. The complete list of levels/maps is a violation of WP:VGSCOPE and WP:GAMEGUIDE, with mass amounts of unsourced information. That leaves nothing left to WP:PRESERVE. Even if we added a reception or development section, it would duplicate what we already have at the game article. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Overwatch per my other votes at deletion discussions like this one. I don't think these types of articles should exist, period. λ NegativeMP1 00:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or if anything Merge to the Overwatch franchise article. The claim of "mass amounts of unsourced information" is exaggerated, and while there are several paragraphs that need sourcing, this should be obvious they can be fixed or trimmed down with how much coverage Overwatch has gotten. Further, things like lists of levels are not forbidden per VGSCOPE or GAMEGUIDE, but rarely do you see every game level get discussed in anything more than name drops, which is why we normally don't have such lists since the bulk will only be sourced to primary material. However, all the maps in Overwatch have been discussed to various degrees in secondary sources, which doesn't immediately disqualify those lists; obviously this is the exception, not the rule. Masem (t) 00:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a list of Overwatch maps would be feasible, but the article is too detailed like a WP:NOTDATABASE. IgelRM (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per NOPAGE. "Gameplay of X" simply does not work as a standalone article, for the same reason that we couldn't make a "plot of X" article for a book or film. The gameplay essentially is the game, and therefore can't really be covered separately. I do think that this title could make a useful redirect, but I disagree that there is anything here worth merging. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are some standalone articles which do work for games where keeping gameplay/rules in the main article would result in a too large article. For example, Rules of chess has a good article rating. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough secondary sources for a standalone article and merging back would run into WP:TOOBIG issues. There are parts that can be trimmed/removed (per Masem above) and more critical analysis could be incorporated so this feels like a cleanup issue instead of a deletion issue. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given the article's large amount of sources to wade through, would those arguing Keep be willing to share examples of SIGCOV per Wikipedia:THREE? I feel a more valid argument can be generated if it's made more clear what sources are being considered as major coverage in this case. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as it fails WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. I also don't oppose transwiki to Wikibooks, but this is unencyclopedic content as it is only relevant to fans of the game and no one else. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Overwatch. Despite a large amount of sources for this article, larger video games with far more detailed content on their gameplay do not have standalone articles about their gameplay. A good 90% of this page is just the history of Overwatches gameplay changes and its maps. I see no reason why any of the notable content in this article requires a stand alone article. Clubspike2 (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Scott, Dean (July 2004). "Review: Max Play 01". Nintendo Official Magazine. No. 142. p. 97. ISSN 0965-4240.

[2] Yohko; Teruo (April 2005). "szara strefa". Hardkor. PSX Extreme [pl] (in Polish). No. 92. p. 77. ISSN 1429-172X.

[1]

[2]