Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

30 March 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

< March 29	March 31 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Khady Ndiaye

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

This seems like a WP:BLP1E. Also, Ndiaye isn't even a chaplain yet, but a chaplain candidate, so even notability for that event seems not particularly special. I don't think she meets WP:ANYBIO either. For most other "first" chaplains like Bonnie Koppell and Abdul-Rasheed Muhammad, they have more significant accomplishments beyond being the first chaplain of their religion/gender, and I don't think her removal from the DoD website, while unfortunate, is something that qualifies as making her more notable. I'd say draftifying at very least would be appropriate until Ndiaye actually becomes a chaplain. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Military. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Al Habtoor

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

Not a notable business person. No significant coverage Wp:SIGCOV is available about the subject. His father may be notable, but he is not, and notability is not inherited. Zuck28 (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Business, and United Arab Emirates. Zuck28 (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity Model of British Ancestry

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

There is no such thing as the "Continuity Model of British Ancestry", and the old sources being united under this heading are about different things, and are handled in various other WP articles. This new article fails in terms of WP:NOTE, WP:OR, and WP:V. There has been discussion already on the talk page, and no convincing source has been forthcoming.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is about a school of thought that was once dominant in British genetics as late as 15 years ago, which will mean that the subject is notable. which if included in other articles would give undue weight to the now largely abandoned idea that the British gene pool is substantially unaffected by subsequent invaders, because Wikipedia was being substantially written then. There was at two major TV series devoted to this, Francis Pryor's Britain AD and Britain BC, while you had some best sellers (as well as the accompanying books from Francis Pryor, they also included Blood of the Isles and The Origins of the British) which propounded a theory that was dominant in academia before more genetic testing of ancient DNA became practical. Some quotes that illustrate the thinking from that time:

"The gene pool of the island has changed, but more slowly and far less completely than implied by the old 'invasion model', and the notion of large-scale migrations, once the key explanation for change in early Britain, has been widely discredited." Dr Simon James - BBC article
"All these marker systems indicate a deep-shared ancestry in the Atlantic zone, dating at least in part to the end of the Ice Age" - Genetics and the Origins of the British Population - in the Wiley Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (accesible with Wikimedia)
"But geneticists who have tested DNA throughout the British Isles are edging toward a different conclusion. Many are struck by the overall genetic similarities, leading some to claim that both Britain and Ireland have been inhabited for thousands of years by a single people that have remained in the majority, with only minor additions from later invaders like Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings and Normans." Nicholas Wade
"The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands." - Prospect article by Stephen Oppenheimer, a major populariser of the argument
"This idea of a ‘Beaker Folk’ became unpopular after the 1960s as scepticism grew about the role of migration in mediating change in archaeological cultures" - The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe *"During the 1960s scepticism began to grow about the primacy of migration as a vector of social change in prehistory." The return of the Beaker Folk? Rethinking migration and population change in British prehistory academic paper that severely challenged the school
"By that time, many scholars favoured a model of elite dominance involving small, mobile warbands and the acculturation of the local British population" The Anglo-Saxon migration and the formation of the early English gene pool - Later article that severely challenged this school

I intend to add others as this debate goes on. JASpencer (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JASpencer: As discussed on the article talk page, what you are listing are at best different arguments (I think doubts would be a better term) against different possible migrations, in different periods of history and prehistory. They are simply not united by any "model" or "school" or "theory" or "movement". (To pre-empt another possible argument, they are also not united by being the results of genetic research. Doubts about the extreme "migrationism" of the late 19th and early 20th century, were, as you show yourself, common long before genetic evidence became available. Indeed your genetic-oriented sources are from the period before meaningful genetic evidence was available.) There are also other articles for every valid point that can be discussed about the sources you are uniting. Also, as discussed concerning recent articles you tried to create, putting everything else aside it wouldn't make any sense to make separate articles for models (for example the Germanicist extreme "migrationism") and diverse critics of those models [1][2].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but edit down, or merge. I cut out an entirely unsourced piece. If nobody objects, I'll do more editing down to a more manageable size, in the next 48 hours. Bearian (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And what is your source for the existence of the "Continuity Model of British Ancestry"? We should not have an article about something which does not exist, surely? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as an objection. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is an honest question, and has nothing to do with your editing proposal. If there is a source, then maybe I should change my own opinion, which is that the article should be deleted (although there would still be major overlap concerns). Concerning editing the article, the whole idea seems a bit surreal unless we can define some notable topic which this article is about? Right now it is essentially a collection of snippets about different topics which are covered in other articles. Not only is there already an article about the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, but even an extra article about the history of debates about it, made recently by the same editor who recently made this one Historiography of the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. In the same series of events we also had two more articles created for BOTH sides of the specific continuity migration this article about [3][4]. These now redirect to Migrationism and diffusionism. We also have [[5]]. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes editing would help, thank you for your interest. JASpencer (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a source for the term 'continuity model' as it relates to Britain, fwiw. Tewdar 09:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've added this as a reference. For those who don't have access to Wikipedia library the quote is "This approach could be described as the ‘continuity model’ and it remains extremely important in post-processual considerations of the transition period. Lots of other references there to chase down. JASpencer (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We really need more educated opinions on this article so I'll try another relisting to see if we can arrive at some consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Clay (soccer)

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sit-ups (punishment)

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

Reason Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC) This entire article contains numerous unreferenced claims about the various variants of sit-ups, lacking any reliable sources to support them. The information appears to have been added by some bunch of students, incorporating misleading and nonsensical details that violate Wikipedia’s content policies. Furthermore, most of the information on this topic is derived from news sources and it is not required to make a seperate article for this topic in wikipedia if further research isn't made.[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 March 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's worse, the sourcing only beginning at the bottom of the article or the fact that no-one in 11 years has consulted any sort of decent source to discover that uthak baithak is in fact squatting, as is murga (which we currently have at stress position). Uncle G (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essay. Geschichte (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the referenced content into the "Sit-up" article and delete the article and the large amount of unreferenced content. A independent article about sit-ups as a punishment does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Wikipedialuva (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Why merge it into the wrong thing? It isn't a sit-up. Uncle G (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Yvanovich

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

Please see this diff from before I removed a section. I wasn't going to AfD this at first, but after digging into it more, I don't see any redeemable sources, nor could I find any on my own. This article was created by a paid editor and moved from the draftspace themselves, however, it occurred 110 days ago so draftification was not an option. The only source that could be approaching significant coverage is the Yahoo News article, everything else is primary sources, WP:PASSINGMENTIONS, etc. Without the puffery, this article says little more than "This is someone who exists." MediaKyle (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MediaKyle (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative gendarmerie enlisted ranks of Francophone countries

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

Unclear why this comparison would be a notable topic (plus WP:NOTGALLERY). Fram (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and France. Fram (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete Incomprehensible and basically unreferenced (I mean comparison is unreferenced). --Altenmann >talk 20:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is in line with other comparative charts for military ranks that have been kept for years. As shown in the introduction and history sections, gendarmeries across the francophone world commonly developed from the French gendarmerie that was made up of deployed personnel from France alongside locally recruited personnel. So, this article provides an easy view of the similarities between these forces, alongside the more interesting differences as seen in the cases of Mauritius and Vanuatu, where while acting as and being recognised as gendarmeries in the literature, follow British policing inspired rank systems, due to British colonial interests and history in these territories. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have shared shared a link to this discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History, as that is the Project with main interest in this article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are similar articles relating to comparative ranks and provides useful information. Just needs some improvement.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article provides important details about gendarmeries and their ranks. I suggest the article be improved as its a helpful resource.Frank Ken (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having received notification from the relevant WikiProject, I took a look at the article and sources, but couldn't find what the problem is other than minor editorial issues, so I decided to come here for more info. I totally agree with Cdjp1 and others. This is in line with other comparative charts especially in the military. It is notable with plenty of reliable sources, not to mention helpful to the general reader, and I see no problem here. Tamsier (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice that the people of the MilHist project seem to like this article, but why? The text has no comparison of the ranks at all, just provides some background. The large gallery provides no context and has no clear relation to the article text. The implicit claims in the gallery (e.g. that a sergeant-major in Canada isn't comparable to a sergeant-major in Chad, or that a corporal in Tunisia isn't comparable to a corporal in Vanuatu) are unreferenced, and it is very unclear which of the 23 sources, if any, are actually about the comparison in the table, or whether this table is pure WP:OR, and whether any reliable sources actually do care about the comparison of Tunisian ranks with Vanuatuan ranks. Fram (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think editorial issues do not qualify for article deletion, considering this is notable.

Maybe we could move it for Gendarmerie ranks in general, and also include russian natonal guard, PAP and other agencies Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally agree with Thehistorianisaac. As I've stated above, there are indeed editorial issues, which could be fixed, but that's not a ground for deletion. The issues could be fixed through our normal editing process, but the article is notable and warrants a stand-alone. Tamsier (talk) 08:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  You both claim this is notable, but neither of you has responded to my question; which of the 23 sources, if any, are actually about the comparison in the table, or whether this table is pure WP:OR, and whether any reliable sources actually do care about the comparison of e.g. Tunisian ranks with Vanuatuan ranks.
  
  The topîc of the article is the comparison, so you need sources about the comparison, not sources about individual countries nor about the history of the French gendarmerie. This is not an editorial issue, this is a fundamental issue for an AfD. Fram (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find articles like this useful but can't comment on their notability. Fwiw, I was led here from a Village Pump thread on the same topic that seems relevant. -- Avocado (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doorman (character)

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

A minor superhero in Marvel comics and a member of the Great Lakes Avengers. Doorman has very little in the way of coverage; a search only turns up WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, which do not indicate notability, or brief mentions as part of the Great Lakes Avengers when that group receives separate discussion. He is not individually notable from the Great Lakes Avengers, and I feel as though a redirect there should more than suffice given what little coverage of him exists. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woochong Um

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

Sourcing currently doesn't suggest notability for people; WP:NBIO. Possible notable, but not clear from current state seefooddiet (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Environment, Korea, and Philippines. seefooddiet (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]