Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

11 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 10	February 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Charikol Pukurpar Dakhil Madrasah

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

Tagged for notability by BoyTheKingCanDance. The author added a source defining what a madrasa is and removed the notability tag. Then Hey man im josh moved the article to draft because it needed more sources. The author promptly moved it back to article space without improvement. So we're here.

Of the two sources, one is a directory listing giving the head's name, phone number, and email in a list of 26 madrasas in the sub-district. The other is an encyclopedia article about madrasas in general (it doesn't mention this one). Searches in English and Bengali found no sources that would establish notability.

For what it's worth, the corresponding page was speedily deleted from bn.wikipedia on 19 December 2024 by Ferdous for failing to indicate importance (rules there are a little different from here). Worldbruce (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hav Soknet

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

I can't seem to find anything other than either transfer blurbs, passing references, and databases. Apparently he scored a "beautiful goal" in a recent match, but I can't find anything more than that approaching WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cambodia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

German-occupied Poland

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

Some of content copied from Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) and Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany per WP:CFORK. Absolutiva (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Germany, and Poland. Absolutiva (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. I originally, way back in 2006, redirected it to Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany. In 2018 Lembit Staan changed that into what I see as a good idea, but badly executed disambig to the original target as well as General Government that over the following few years started slowly growing to the current few sentences. The nom is correct that in the current format this is a pointless CFORK of something. A disambig to the three primary meanings (the two I mentioned and Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) the nom mentioned) will likely be best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israel–Seychelles relations

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

Article primarily based on 3 primary sources from the Israeli government. 2 of these merely confirm no embassies, a third is a factoid that Seychelles allowed Israelis to visit during the pandemic. There appears to be no third party of these relations. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Israel. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The intro focuses on REFERENCES, while calling these sources. References are in an article. For these one does not have to search. AfDs should be focused on SOURCES, which are out there, per the golden NEXIST rule. A quick scan of the internet proves that there are third party sources, for example in Walla and Mako and Channel 13 of Israel. gidonb (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mint chocolate

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

WP:BEFORE in my assortment of chocolate books turned up nothing or mere mentions. No sigcov in Scholar, neither apparently in Books, TWL, JSTOR, Google, NYT archives. Lot of mentions of Mint chocolate chip, although it isn't an appropriate merge or redirect target. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 03:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Types of chocolate. Problem solved. BD2412 T 03:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a flavoring, like strawberry, coffee, or caramel. The scope of Types of chocolate is different, predominantly around production techniques. That being said, the scope could be redefined. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 04:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity, Indiana

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

Here we go again with the churches, with a twist: GNIS claims this came off a topo, except that in the older topos I can see (which aren't all that old, unfortunately) the church building is there, but it is not marked as such. And the name doesn't appear on the map at all. The church is the only thing here, though the county history says it was predated by a convent a mile west of the church's location (which is gone now and which is another anonymous spot). But there's no mention at all of the a settlement per se. Mangoe (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Geography, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chitty Bang Bang (airship)

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

A film prop that does not appear to have stand-alone notability. BEFORE does not help much; it is a prop, it existed for a short while, and its history is briefly described in some works about the film (WP:SIGCOV is a major issue here). At best this could be merged to the film it was a prop for (Chitty Chitty Bang Bang). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Transportation, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of its connection to the film, this is a technically important vessel as the first helium-filled airship built outside the US. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley And which source states that, preferably with the qualification of this as "technically important"? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jane's, which has been in the article from the outset. The sources here (multiple, significant and RS) are more about the airship as aviation than about its film role. Two of the crew are also WP:notable and wrote about this airship in their own autobiographical writings. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, Jane's Pocket Book of Airship Development[1] contains a comprehensive list of airship and this one is included in that, which seems to me to be a passing reference. Orange sticker (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you've not read it? But you've already decided that a publication from Jane's fails WP:RS? It is not a long article on this airship, but it is an article on this airship, as a notable airship, published by just about the most reputable authority on such topics. When did "comprehensive" become a pejorative? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing its reliability just whether or not the subject of this article receives WP:SIGCOV in it - the Google Books search returns 6 mentions throughout the book, including indexes. It doesn't look like an article, just an entry in a table. Orange sticker (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jane's is the epitome of indiscriminate collection.. Its books are not lists of notable anything except to the degree which one holds that for instance all warships are notable. Mangoe (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Chitty Chitty Bang Bang#Special_effects_and_production_design where there is plenty of room for an edited-down version of this material. A whole separate article on this prop is hugely WP:UNDUE, unlike the far more famous and written-about titular automobile(s). Mangoe (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mangoe. I was confused about this because the automobile is likely notable. This is more of a footnote that could be described at the main article or the car article (or both). Archrogue (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you merge an article on an airship to an article on a car? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per others. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chitty_Chitty_Bang_Bang#Special_effects_and_production_design as stated above, this seems to only get a passing mention one of its main references and I'm not even confident that supports the statements in the article. Orange sticker (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the appropriately cited parts. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the nominator has listed this with their other aircraft deletions, several days after the deletion countdown started, I realise that this was part of a bulk run of fictional aircraft. The nomination also describes it as a 'film prop'.

Are you aware that this was a real airship ? And a technically significant one too, one of the first post-1930s UK airships, and the first non-US airship to be filled with helium rather than hydrogen? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting bit of trivia that for a film prop they made an actual airship, but nonetheless it's still all trivia about a film prop. Mangoe (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...that's not how "film prop" works. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it? Mangoe (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was not just a "film prop" - was an actual, flying, operational airship. Sufficient coverage for such is, in fact, already in the article, and there are undoutably more offline sources, given the age of the film. Sources are not required to be online. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

further comment Besides not seeing how "they built an actual airship" makes it into something besides a film prop, there is also the problem that, as far as I can tell, it never actually had a name. It's difficult to search this because most web hits seem to depend on our article, but I can't find anything older that gives it a name, and in this interview with one of the guys who built it, he doesn't name it. I also am finding a complete lack of any history of the thing besides its construction and its use in the filming; one source claims it was blown into the trees and destroyed, though I don't know how reliable that account is. At any rate, it wasn't this advanced tour de force of British aviation; it was cobbled together for the film, was underpowered and not entirely controllable, and apparently didn't survive past the end of filming. I supposed one ought to be impressed that they made an actual aircraft rather than faking it with models and sets, but I'm not seeing how this cannot be covered in a reasonably short section of the film's article. Mangoe (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pony, Indiana

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

Another nothing=placv/post-office. References in the county history are all to literal ponies. Mangoe (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lamplighter Theatre

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

Article about a radio show, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for radio shows. As always, radio shows are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them in media and/or books -- but existence is the only notability claim being made here, and the article is referenced entirely to the show's own self-published website about itself, and the self-published websites of directly affiliated companies, rather than any evidence of GNG-worthy coverage about it. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Talk

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

Article about a radio show, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for radio shows. The attempted notability claim here is that it's "the longest-running computer-related broadcast program on the air", but there's no source shown to verify that, or anything else either -- the only "reference" present in the article at all is the external link to the self-published website of the show's host, but it doesn't contain any content verifying any of this either and is instead just an archive of a handful of radio comedy clips rather than anything related to computers.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have proper WP:GNG-worthy referencing. Bearcat (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Washington. Bearcat (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitution Society

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

Fails GNG (or WP:NCORP, if you believe charities qualify as such). Badbluebus (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Badbluebus (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra P. Parajuli

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

Article doesn’t meet criteria for notability. Has promotional tone. Information provided are not supported by sources indicating COI of editor. Rahmatula786 (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Health and fitness, Medicine, Nepal, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bald Truth

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

Article about a radio program, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for radio programs. As always, radio programs are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them -- and while this asserts things about the show that could count as notability claims if they were sourced properly, it cites no sources at all besides the show's own self-published website about itself, and says nothing that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt the show from having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TideWise

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

Business does business things. Nothing notable. Refs fail WP:SIRS. Subject fails WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Brazil. UtherSRG (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Donalds

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG as none of the posts they've held are notable for an article, with most notability appearing to be because she is married to a U.S. Representative, going against the principle of WP:NOTINHERITED. Most references do not provide WP:SIGCOV or are not independent of the subject. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, Education, United States of America, and Florida. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep, due to her rather high profile as an activist. The subject gets quite a few newspapers.com hits. No objection to moving to draft for improvement to a clearly encyclopedic level of coverage. BD2412 T 01:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Seiter

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

Not a notable media personality. Briefly participated in a reality show and performed two inconsequential publicity stunts covered by celebrity tabloids (EW, etc.). Looks like LGBT media outlets reported on him because one of the stunts involved pursuing a gender transition. Best, Bridget (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Television. Bridget (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]