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

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]

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. [1] is the only sigcov, while this one [2] 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. 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]

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]

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]

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]