Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

10 February 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 09	February 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Eric Kaniut

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

Another piece of Guantanamo cruft created by a now-WP:SBAN editor. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Mid-level military officer who is not notable, with no WP:SIGCOV about Kaniut the person or the military officer. The article is a collection of various WP:PASSING and WP:SYNTH. Longhornsg (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Cuba, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eduant Private Russian School

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

Although the Hürriyet cite is fine I am not sure about the other cites so I doubt this school is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Russia, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prodan (disambiguation)

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

WP:TWODABS applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillization of Turkish

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

Uncited and nothing in this article says why it is notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Bulgaria, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CITF Form 40

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

Non-notable form that fails WP:GNG. No secondary WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS, unlike notable forms such as the SF-86 or DD Form 214. Longhornsg (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Travel Portland

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

May not pass WP:NCORP, was dubiously created after related Mr. Dude article was AfD'ed, with its content merged into this article. Might be better to merge everything into "Tourism in Portland, Oregon." PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Oregon. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a refbombed article created specifically as a spin-out of another article at AfD which fails WP:NCORP, specifically the WP:AUD prong (as do a lot of Oregon articles, which is why we have more articles on random businesses in Oregon than any other jurisdiction in the world) but also with regards to significant coverage. The best articles are just local reporting on advertising buys. I agree this could be merged to a specific article on Portland tourism. SportingFlyer T·C 06:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tourism in Portland, Oregon. Clearly does not meet NCORP on its own, but the coverage of campaigns is suitable for the Tourism article. Sounder Bruce 07:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and HEY. Not sure why I couldn't be afforded even 24 hours to expand the article, which clearly covers a notable topic and now has 50+ reliable sources. I'm also not sure WP:BEFORE was completed, as searching "Travel Portland" at The Oregonian archives from 1987 to present via the Multnomah County Library yields 168 returns and a search for "Portland Oregon Visitors Association" (the same organization's former name) yields 550 returns. There are additional returns in the library's pre-1987 database. Of course some of these are passing mentions or reports released by the organization, but there's in-depth coverage in Oregon's paper of record spanning decades. There's still more to add, but already the article includes details about history, operations (including leadership, visitor centers and office locations), funding, specific tourism campaigns, and other funded projects. I can at least make sense of the nomination to delete Mr. Dude, but there's obviously sufficient coverage to support this standalone article. I would ask other editors to allow more time for this entry to be expanded and improved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, fails WP:NCORP. Created to circumvent consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Dude. A complete waste of all our volunteer time. Asparagusstar (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (keep or merge) I take it from what Another Believer says that the coverage in The Oregonian meets the WP:NCORP requirement for significant, independent, reliable, and secondary coverage, but another source meeting all four criteria is required, though it needn’t be regional or statewide as is the O. If such coverage exists (whether referenced in the article or not), then keep; otherwise merge to Tourism in Portland, Oregon. Whether a portion of the information comes from an article since deleted by consensus is immaterial, as is any speculation about the motives for creating this article. YBG (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I have expanded Travel Portland extensively and there remain many sources to add. I oppose a merge to Tourism in Portland, Oregon, per WP:NOTMERGE. The resulting entry would be severely clunky and skewed towards Travel Portland, which is just one of many orgs that have done tourism work on behalf of the city (Portland Business Alliance / Portland Metro Chamber, Portland Development Commission / Prosper Portland, Regional Arts & Culture Council, Oregon Tourism Commission, etc). It does not make sense to fold all of this content about one entity into a broad article that is also in desperate need of a major expansion. The Travel Portland entry has content gaps spanning decades that I'm trying to fill, so I'll keep plugging away. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem now is that the article is significantly ref-bombed with articles that have absolutely nothing to do with Travel Portland. I see a maximum of one article which might be significant coverage, the Oregonian article where they changed their name, which I can't access, but the rest is just fluff, a couple interviews with local business magazines or passing mentions in articles that are about something else entirely. Wikipedia is not a random company's public relations wing. SportingFlyer T·C 18:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could not disagree more with your assessment. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then identify the sources that makes this org notable. SportingFlyer T·C 18:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This could potentially have been a merge candidate to "Tourism in Portland, Oregon", but what tips the scales on passing NCORP is that there have been numerous reliable sources covering news about the organization itself and its campaigns. For instance, reliable news sources talking about new leadership of the org. This clearly indicates that the organization itself is notable, rather than just incidentally mentioned when covering tourism in the city. Steven Walling • talk 05:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through all of the now 90(!) references in the article and all I see on the new leadership of the org is coverage from a local business journal in interview format. WP:NCORP is very strict, and WP:CORPDEPTH is policy - I'm not sure I see a single source here that is sufficiently independent of the organization. I just want someone to actually say "these sources go past WP:CORPTRIV." SportingFlyer T·C 05:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no consensus. I think the cause of the creation of this article is irrelevant to whether or not the subject is notable. I'd like participants to seriously consider the possibility of a Merge option in addition to the standare Keep and Delete prospects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shami Stovall

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

Seems to fail WP:AUTHOR, I could not find any reliable independent sources about them. The current source used for their bio is a podcast interview their spouse did. Suggest deletion or redirect to List_of_Dragon_Award_nominees#Best_Young_Adult_/_Middle_Grade_Novel Emm90 (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Science fiction and fantasy, Law, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo Bay attorneys

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

Redirect to Center for Constitutional Rights as WP:ATD. Fails WP:NLIST, which is what this article is. This article is a collection of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and WP:SYNTH of lawyers who over decades represented various detainees at Guantanamo Bay. However, the list doesn't refer to the attorney as a collective group. If the attorneys are individually notable, they should have their own articles. Longhornsg (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, Cuba, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of treaties of Turkey

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

I am not really familiar with lists. I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists but I am still not sure - for the lists in https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Turkey.html#Cites%20no%20sources should we just remove the ancient “uncited” tags? I mean if there are no red links do such lists need to be cited? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UMSL Student Government Association

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:ORG non-commercial organization that does not operate on a national scale or have significant coverage from multiple unrelated sources (many sources are from UMSL or the UMSL student newspaper). The scope of UMSL Student Government Association is limited to the students of UMSL. Similar concerns were brought up in a 2008 AfD discussion but no notable sources were added.

There are also very few of these types of articles on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Student_governments_in_the_United_States). Articles on that list like Florida Student Association and Hawaii State Student Council are intra-state organizations that work for student populations across whole states whereas the UMSL SGA article serves a single school. GrantPeePee (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and Missouri. GrantPeePee (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every school has a student government, and student organization are typically not notable. The whole article is only relevant to members. Reywas92^Talk 15:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lysistrata: Adapted from Aristophanes for modern performance

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

No evidence of secondary coverage in reliable sources. Searching the article title, "Lysistrata" "Andrew Irvine" and "Lysistrata" "andrew david irvine" yield no good hits. Current article currently only has primary sources to back it up. Does not meet any of the other book notability criteria. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I haven't found any reviews, scholarly or otherwise. No reason to redirect this to Andrew David Irvine; it's already mentioned there and the search function will turn up his article if anyone happens to search for it. -- asilvering (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This play has never had a real production, only a workshop performance, and no critics have written about it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Mileasel (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muyiwa Awoniyi

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

Non-notable business executive who fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Notability is not inherited. Sources are either iffy, are promo, or are lacking substantial coverage of the subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I agree with the nominator that some of the sources lack substantial coverage on the subject, although the Rolling Stone and Music Week references do mention him in slightly more detail. The page was also created on February 1, 2025, one day before it was nominated for deletion, so I would prefer if this article was given some additional time to develop before we proceed any further with deletion. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Almost all the sources are either interview or press releases. They can neither establish WP:GNG nor WP:SIGCOV. Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a manager of notable singer-songwriters including Tems who has just won a Grammy Award and Omah Lay among notable others. It is this manager that managed Tems from their early career to Grammy Award. This manager meets WP:NBASIC when all sources that discuss him are combined. Some of those sources are here[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. The subject is mentioned multiple times in the sources above. Some of the articles are based on his social media posts suggesting that he is notable and the media keep watch of his social media activities and writing about it. Lacent Pak (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that these sources can further enhance the article, I encourage you to integrate them. However, I worry that the Pulse reference is too gossipy for Wikipedia as it hinges on a tweet that supposedly received some controversy. A few of the other sources you just provided, including the "Dating Rumor" article, are also unlikely to be of much help for similar reasons as the Pulse reference. As such, I would exercise caution to ensure that the content being added is encyclopedic in nature.Dobbyelf62 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stubify it. I'm the first to line up to get rid of another LinkedIn page of a run of the mill Nigerian business person, or music "producer", or special assistant to the president for outreach to Biafra. But this isn't like that. The subject appears notable, and has significant coverage in respected international media. Managers are not all alike, and some are actually creative artists themselves. Please, don't bite the legitimate newbies. Also, sometimes a shorter stub is better than a longer article with 12 crappy gossip stories from tabloid newspapers and YouTubers. Bearian (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian I hardly reply people at AfDs because I respect everyone’s opinion, but can you please clarify who is the “legitimate newbie” and whose action constitutes BITE? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A legitimate newbie is someone who is making a good faith effort to add content, but doesn't know how to add tags or formatting, or how to provide reliable sources. Nominating an article in the middle of edits is a little bitey, when the risk is low in the grand scheme of things here, but I might be wrong here about relative risks. Bearian (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian Please be sure of certain comments, I know the efforts I put in welcoming newbies and BITE isn't one of them. I nominated this article 25 hours after it was created and over 16 hours after it was last edited. This article has only been edited once (hours after I nominated it) by the article creator. So, I do not see where BITE is coming from at all, it is a serious comment that requires you to first be sure. Other users usually follow WP:NPPHOUR before acting on articles and the requirement is to wait for at least one hour to pass after creation before draftifying or nominating an article for deletion, that it not the case here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep. The available sources are enough to meet at least WP:NBASIC. Mekomo (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly leaning towards keep
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tabasco Chocolate

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

It looks like an interesting product, but a WP:BEFORE is throwing up mainly trade magazines. The two sources used are likewise a trade magazine and a non-independent website selling the product. Most of the article is about Tabasco sauce. Can be redirected into Tabasco sauce, no sources mentioning the product appear to exist to justify a DUE merge. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 01:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither of the sources cited in this article has any content about this product anymore, and the content I have found on my own is minimal and not significant enough to justify an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Products, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fortran 95 language features

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

Wikipedia is not a website for hosting documentation, manuals, or essays about the features of a particular language. See WP: NOTWEBHOST and not WP: HOWTO. Talk page discussion indicates that this appears to be a mirror of another tutorial page, and thus there might be copyright issues here as well. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you're here to complain because you personally feel that this content is "useful" (which everyone knows is a terrible argument that wastes valuable volunteer time, per WP: USEFUL), then we can transwiki this content to another place, such as Wikibooks, or selectively merge content to Fortran. Please remember that this AfD is not your soapbox to wax poetic about your purely subjective notion of "usefulness". It is to determine whether it violates Wikipedia policy; specifically WP: NOTWEBHOST, WP: NOTHOWTO, and Wikipedia's policy on copyrighted materials. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that language features are what makes the language what it is. Especially when there are so many other languages out there. Labratscientist (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could talk about histories an all that non-stop, but for some, it is sometimes just down to the features or the support of the language that makes it unique from others. Labratscientist (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple massive sections in the main Fortran article that already talk about the language's evolution. If you think that the content there is sufficient, this article isn't necessary and should be deleted. If you think that it isn't, then you've just made a great argument for merging. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Computing. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selected content, with added citations to Fortran. This is a very, very long article with only a single reference. I appreciate the work that went into it but this belongs on wikibooks or similar. BTW, while a lot of this reads more like a tutorial, we could use more detail on language features and syntax in programming articles here on Wikipedia in general! I welcome those involved in this article to improve the Fortran article. That article does not have a syntax section, is not well organized, and does not have a comprehensive overview of the language features and syntax. Caleb Stanford (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad Salame

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

Declined prod with additional info added up on competing in Summer Universiade. I don't think that is enough to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:SPORTCRIT is met by the wealth of newspaper sources at [8]. I'll wait for a native speaker to dive in further, but those from Al Anwar seem to indicate the subject was a 1987 national champion which would fulfill WP:NATH as well. --Habst (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]