Nominating it for having a lack of notable sources, outside alleged coverage of their demo. Not really seeing anything else though they might have made an album in 2014 which that isn't mentioned in this article.GamerPro6404:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
managing editor (not even editor-in-chief ) of a local malayalam news tv. 90% of the sources are from the same 'news tv' channal as he is their employee. Wikipedia does not allow even an artcile for president of a youth political wing. An english artcile for a managing editor of a local news tv channal in kerala, is truely promotional and not notable figure.دثلميح (talk)03:49, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The personality is not notable. She is not holding any positions or part of any organizations. She is just the wife of a chief minister of a state (one in 29 states) in india. she maybe convered in news as wife of chief minister and maybe doing some charity or something. that does not make her to have a english wikipedia article. A Promotional article, no value.دثلميح (talk)03:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The user who created the artcle is blocked for promotion and undisclosed editing involving finance[1] '..account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use.'
The user has created many article of which many are deleted because it is promotional, and this article too is a promotional and can say that 'edits invloving fincace', as the blocking admin commented on his talk page while blocking him.دثلميح (talk)03:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is redundant. I don't think this "sideshow-incident" has enough information or sources to justify its existence. Main information is inUnited Airlines Flight 175 anyway. As an alternate, we can merge information, I just don't see what information we should merge as most of it is redundant anyway.Hacked (Talk|Contribs)03:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the album is somewhat of an underground classic for its genre. I've added a few references and I'll work to expand it over the next few days to nominate it for DYK. --The Cosmonaut (talk)15:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can you explain why it doesn't pass NSONG, and whatWP:BEFORE was conducted before nominating? Article definitely needs work, but being covered by (at least) four other notable artists counts towardsWP:NSONG #3. I note that it's also been used as the theme song of both a 1983 film, andthreedifferentTV shows, so the question should be whether enough SIGCOV exists to establish notability. I'm not familiar with Filipino sources (so will withhold my !vote), but I'd be surprised if there was nothing.Nil🥝00:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Discussion has thus far centered onWP:NSONG criteria 3, but it would be helpful to have more engagement with sourcing, given that the NSONG criteria still rely on having the sourcing to establish notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs)03:21, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article describes “Lactobacillus thermophilus”, a bacterial name that has never been validly published under the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes and is not recognized as a correct species by authoritative taxonomic sources such as LPSN or IJSEM. It is likely a historical misidentification, often confused with Streptococcus thermophilus. As written, the article is misleading and does not meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability or taxonomic validity— Precedingunsigned comment added byCytoscape (talk •contribs)20:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the 2011 Indian census, this village had 807 families with 4,177 people in total. The village was 250.60 hectacres in size.[4] - see the pdf [that downloads the file].Katzrockso (talk)02:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ContestedWP:BLAR. Original reasoning wasThis is a rambling, borderline incoherent writing that jumps from topic to topic at random and is completely unfocused. Redirecting to the main data center page as I don't believe that AI Datacenters are notable by themselves even if properly written. Author has stated that it supposedly is a "work in progress" but I'm not sure how credible that claim is... it would take a huge amount of work to make what currently exists acceptable. Note that I am skipping the step of draftifying since I have a feeling the creator would just revert that as well.Taking Out The Trash (talk)19:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Article is work in progress. First step was to write down immediate notes. It is all focused on the topic of AI datacenter. There is much to write and there is much discussion in the news and internet on this topic, reaching all way to the whitehouse. I reviewed the process of draftifying. I think the article will get more edits where it is.
On the topic of notability: the article has 30+ references including links to whitehouse discussion and some of the most important companies in the world. I find the argument of lack of notability absurd.
Keep Refs. 15 and 20 are enough to satisfy SIGCOV, and I think the topic is distinct enough from "data center" more generally to have an article (the sources seem to suggest AI datacenters are unique, and based on my limited knowledge I would agree). But the article right now is a hot mess, with much better sourcing needed and considerable copyediting for clarity and coherence. Frankly the article isn't ready for mainspace so I could acceptdraftify as my second choice.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)23:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Sounds like it is a work in progress so let's keep it in draft space and have it go through the normal AfC process? I am skeptical this is a necessary content fork of "datacenter" since there isn't that much different when it comes to AI datacenters. From my view they have extreme size/power/volatile memory/parallelism requirements but in a certain sense that is just the expected result of exponential growth in computation. I vote draftify and we can see how it ends up after further editing to judge whether it is a necessary/unnecessary content fork.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk)01:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why sounds like? Have you bothered to look at the article? There are many differences outlined in the article. The 50 references and external links are unique for ai datacenters and are not generically talking about datacenter. Daniel.Cardenas (talk)02:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article seems to have been improved substantially from the time at which it was nominated. Seems well-written, and I would agree that this topic is unique enough to merit its own article, glancing through the sources looks pretty good. I'd say the article needs work but not deletion any longer.aaronneallucas (talk)17:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Updating my vote toRedirect todata center. I suggested draftify before since the article seemed poorly written + actively being worked on and I didn't do a full in-depth look at all the sourcing b/c it seemed like a clearWP:REFBOMB. I had expected some sourcing to be good, but no reliable sources are providing a clear distinction between an"AI datacenter" and"A data center for AI". As I stated in my earlier comment, data centers being used for AI are not much different than "traditional" data centers. They have a higher degree of power/parallelism/cooling requirements, but data centers have always trended in that direction.
For those voting to keep, links to high quality sources showing a clear distinction between "AI datacenters" and larger/more advanced datacenters would be helpful for other voters. Ref numbers in the article are changing with edits. Of the sources currently in the article, this one from PCMag[5] meets reliability/depth criteria for data centers but notably never uses the phrase "AI data center". Most other reliable sources are talking about infrastructure build out and not about what constitutes an "AI datacenter" vs a bigger, more advanced "traditional" data center. Sources that are making a distinction between types seem to be user-generated and aren't reliable.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk)03:15, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article failsWP:N andWP:SIGCOV. Currently, the article is supported by a single source "Karmic astrology", which seems to be a primary source by an astrologer. Also, not able to find much secondary sources to add any additional content here. Note: I had itWP:PROD, but an IP removed it. So creating an AfD for discussion. IP also had added 2 unreliable sources, which I have reverted.Asteramellus (talk)01:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think merging there would be helpful. I removed one of the source, which was notWP:RS atAstrology#India and Japan. The other source seems to be talking very broadly about Karma in terms of Hindu Philosophy and don't see any details about any specific "Karmic astrology" - maybe I am missing something - can you also read the cited source there? Thanks.Asteramellus (talk)01:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination does not specify the problem. What's wrong with the references? Have you tried mergers? Have you tried looking for other sources? In the alternative, at least a redirect should be considered.Bearian (talk)15:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lenticel, how does it notable if there's lack of coverage about this song that only focus only to the cover version? The sources just focus only to the cover songs instead toLeah Navarro? Although, theref10 this is the interview of Leah Navarro, it dosen't help thecoverage about the original song.ROY is WARTalk!07:52, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The original song was recorded in 1979. The internet did not come to the Philippines until the 1990s. The fact that this is still be remade by singers in the 21st century more than passesWP:NSONG, aWP:SNG meant to replaceWP:GNG on specific cases. I can't understand how hard this is for it to be understood.Howard the Duck (talk)10:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are several drama boards for this if you want to... you'd really have to justify how that statement is a "personal attack". Not a "ILIKEIT" vote; this song literally is "a classic OPM hit across 4 decades" (undisputable), making this "certainly more notable than the Bini songs". If that's a personal attack, where's the Kobe Bryant soft GIF?Howard the Duck (talk)10:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Theclassic OPM hit across 4 decades, doesn't justify notability just because it's a hit. In Wikipedia, the basis here is if the song is notable perWP:GNG orWP:NSONG andWP:NALBUM. Bini songs are off-topic here and if it's fall underWP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (This is similar comment on bullet one*::::Keep There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that. EmperorOtherstuff (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)). Comparing to other songs doesn't justify the notability of the article. If you have to argue, please stick to the references if you have found it. Also your comment:where's the Kobe Bryant soft GIF? please keep yourprorfessionalism here. (See:PILLARS or5P4).ROY is WARTalk!11:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, if a song "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups" then it passesWP:NSONG. This is not just as a recording, but at least one those recordings were bona fide singles. This is something that has been wholeheartedly ignored by the proponent. FWIW, even on that sole criterion, this should be an easy keep viaWP:SNG.Howard the Duck (talk)11:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a personal attack or not, bringing up the content someone edits on Wikipedia on a discussion for something completely unrelated to said topic as a rationale is uncalled for and immature. Also,WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
I also hope you know that NSONG says "Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful", not that a song meeting a specific criteria automatically is notable, and the NMUSIC page iterates multiple times sources that discuss the subject are still required.λNegativeMP117:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NSONG requires that sources still exist for a song or album which cover it in detail, regardless of its charting or certifications or whatever, and arguments otherwise are misconceptions. It clearly states that a song meeting a specific criteriamight mean its notable, as in a source search may bring more results. And, even if it did somehow make it meet the SNG clearly, GNG still states "The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia".WP:SIGCOV is still required. As the article at present, I am not seeing such. Yes, the deletion rationale here could have been more thorough, but I don't see that as a reason in of itself to keep a seemingly non-notable subject.λNegativeMP117:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try this again. This article was nominated at AFD about 6 years ago which was closed as no consensus (although I think there was at least a rough consensus to delete even then). The primary concern here is that this was a case ofWP:BLP1E, surrounding a fairly minor achievement that made the rounds in the popular press and then quickly died out again. The intervening years have only solidified this view, as I can find no real additional coverage of Iwao, especially independent of this one event (doing a record-setting calculation of the digits of pi). That record has been surpassed at least 3 times since this article was written, once by Iwao again, and twice by two others. It's also worth noting that this achievement isn't particularly interesting or impressive. It's just a matter of throwing enough computing power and time at it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)00:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is impeccably referenced and the subject's claim to fame justifies inclusion on Wikipedia. I would also respectfully disagree with the assertion that "this achievement isn't particularly interesting or impressive."Capt. Milokan (talk)00:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The references are irrelevant in the face ofWP:BLP1E. And there is no real claim to fame here. It's a fairly trivial accomplishment in the wake of ever-increasing available computing power, that made the rounds for a week or so because it coincided with Pi Day, and made a for a nice light-news-day type story. After that, it quickly faded; there's been no lasting coverage or impact on anything. Something like this doesn't magically endow one with the right to inclusion on Wikipedia. She didn't develop the algorithm to compute pi; she didn't write the program to compute pi; she just ran it. This is a nothing burger. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)00:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was hoping time would have helped put this one in perspective, but let me elaborate by reiterating the salient part of BLP1E:
We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.
Number 1 is pretty clear and I don't think anyone has disagreed with that. As for number 2, after this was over, there's been no coverage of Iwao, so she has pretty clearly remained a low-profile individual. Number 3 is probably the most arguable, but as I pointed out above; this is not a particularly impressive accomplishment. It's just a matter of throwing enough computing power at y-cruncher. This record has been broken 3 times in the the 6 years since, and will likely be broken more times as computing power increases and people with the resources to do it feel like doing it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)01:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A Guinness record isn't notable, by itself... Some coverage in the BBC[6], CBS News[7] and the WaPo[8], I'd say that amounts to a one-time notability for the event, so a case if 1E.Oaktree b (talk)16:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to gauge what is or is not a "stand-out achievement" isWP:OR. We defer to reliable sources to determine what's worthy of note -- and what's worthy of note may not be the most impressive achievement to someone in the field. —Rhododendritestalk \\19:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is. The standard isWP:N, which is based on sourcing, and we evaluate sourcing according to another set of criteria atWP:RS. "Significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" is basicallyWP:GNG, which is one of the ways to be considered notable. There no "dismiss top-tier news sources if you know the Truth about the experiment not being impressive enough to confer notable" guideline. —Rhododendritestalk \\15:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We still have BLP1E to consider, which I think very clearly does point us away from having an article for Iwao. As doesWP:ANYBIO, for which this very much fails to meet. But we also do have some latitude to exercise a little common sense and editorial discretion over what "notability" is...and here, we a little bit ofvery light news coverage of a record-setting pi computation, along with some surface-level interviews with the person who pushed the button on the computer to execute it. This just doesn't cut it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)16:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We still have BLP1E to consider - Why? Press coverage for two records, three years apart per my !vote. If those two events are somehow BLP1E because they're for the same thing, I suppose athletes are broadly BLP1E as they just play the same sport over and over. —Rhododendritestalk \\17:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Chemist/material scientist working with scanning probes who has made a good start, but it isWP:TOOSOON, he does not passWP:NPROF yet. His citations are h=37, ~4K total which are below notable, this is a medium-high citation area (where I have overlap but no COI). Three of his four highest citation papers are larger team efforts where he is one of many. The other where he is 1st author (247 cites) is on rutile [110] which is a popular surface (e.g.Ulrike Diebold). All his awards are junior, nothing senior enough. His citations are ~350/year so it will be some time before he will pass WP:NPROF. Delete for now; I suggest the originator can consider resubmitting via AfC in 3-4 years. PROD was contested by IP without explanation, so now AfD.Ldm1954 (talk)22:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see some moderately-cited papers (in a high citation field), but most are also highly-coauthored, and I tend to discount middle author (in a field where order matters) on a paper with a large number of coauthors. Awards are all early career of the type that does not contribute much to notability. Agree withWP:TOOSOON.Russ Woodroofe (talk)14:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I think his career so far is extremely impressive but I don't think he has produced enough first author paper yet to have a page. I will echo the other responses that I think this a case ofWP:TOOSOONAgnieszka653 (talk)17:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — weak to moderate — Second the primary contention made by the nominator. Just TOOSOON. I'm not going to comment on the technical specifics of @Ldm1954's analysis of yhe subject's contributions, as that went well above my head, but from a layman's perspective? This appears to be a relatively run-of-the-mill career, so far. A good career, most certainly, but I would strongly hesitate to call itencyclopedically notable. I would wager that the subject will make a name for themselves, but I amnot a fortune teller. Their awards... while more impressive than anything I'll ever achieve, I must second the idea that they do not appear to add-up to notability, either, even when combined with the remainder of the article.MWFwiki (talk)01:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails org notability. Assessing the notability of Jeff Vavasour is more difficult but I was unable to find significant non-interview sources. Suggesting merge/redirect to a new legacy section onDigital Eclipse.IgelRM (talk)00:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article was generated with AI by a now indeffed creator (for AI usage), draftification was objected to. The last AFD did nor deal with these issues. Full of OR and the references cannot be trusted. Many of the sources do not exist and are AI fabrications.WP:TNT is applicable due to the amounts of OR and AI. Nothing here is salvageable, so it cannot be repaired with normal editing.PARAKANYAA (talk)00:30, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has already been reviewed before and it contains real references to the Japan Theravada Buddhist Association. Aside from the Google Maps links, most things work fine
Most of these links are not broken. The trouble is that most Japanese news organizations also delete their news articles soon after they are posted online, so it is difficult to find non-primary articles online.MoonersWhite (talk)01:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not the issue at stake here, but that the vast, vast majority of the article[9] is unreviewed AI content from an editor who admitted they did not check their citations and was trying to make articles as fast as possible.PARAKANYAA (talk)02:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. But in the case of this specific article, it seems that others have reviewed this article for citations and accuracy and concluded that the citations are accurate.MoonersWhite (talk)02:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the page history, they have not. There has been some minor copyediting by one editor but no significant changes in the page's content. A few sources were removed but the vast majority of the page is the same kind of content, and what is verifiable is sourced purely to their own site.PARAKANYAA (talk)02:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, it is tough to find secondary articles for Japanese news sources do the fact that those are often taken down by the news agencies that put them up, soon after posting them. Therefore, it is tough to rely on sources outside of primary ones.MoonersWhite (talk)03:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
