Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 04	April 06 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Richard Medhurst

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

Near zero independent third-party WP:RSes - article is substantially sourced to self-sources and non-RSes that are not sufficient for a WP:BLP. There are a couple of RSes, but that would make this a WP:BLP1E. No evidence here that this article meeds WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:GNG. A quick WP:BEFORE did not turn up third-party RS coverage that would meet the requirements of the WP:BLP policy. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, but it would need to be shown. PROD removed but without fixing the referencing issue - David Gerard (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who deprodded the page and I had added 3 sources including articles from Kronen Zeitung (02/25) & The Times of Israel (08/24). This was clearly not a PRODable article.... MUCH more exists. What single event? His arrest in Heathrow in August 2024? part of the coverage is about it. (a lot) https://www.i24news.tv/fr/actu/international/europe/artc-un-commentateur-politique-britannique-anti-israelien-detenu-a-l-aeroport-de-heathrow https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/-trying-to-make-an-example-out-of-me-british-journalist-fears-uk-using-his-arrest-to-silence-dissent/3314071 etc etc Not all. Other arrests, other events are also covered in a variety of languages and sources: https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2025/02/07/richard-medhurst-austria/ https://brusselssignal.eu/2025/02/austrian-security-agents-raid-home-of-british-activist-over-alleged-hamas-membership/ https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/journalist-richard-medhurst-detained-in-austria-after-police https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-805467 etc, etc. Most of all, all sources (hostile, favourable or neutral) present him as a well-known critic of Israel/defender of the Palestinian cause. -Mushy Yank. 00:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Law, Israel, Palestine, and Austria. -Mushy Yank. 00:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: then. -Mushy Yank. 00:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Bergeron

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

I can’t find any sources that aren’t connected to the subject. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Authors. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
? What does the nominator think about the subject's citation record? It appears to contain hundreds of sources that are not connected to the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF. I see three articles with over 500 citations, a fourth with 478, and more articles with over 100 citations. That appears to pass the PROF Test. Plus, while Harvard cheats at hockey, the medical school is sort of prestigious. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has been here since 2005. The article is just one line and one weak source. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see at least 2000 reliable sources not connected to the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Sun Ningkai

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

Making the global final on its own isn't enough to make the subject notable if he doesn't already have in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. A google search doesn't yield any coverage of him, though perhaps he is gaining local coverage in China as a result of making a global final in his home country. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sport of athletics, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Made it to the final in the top event of his sport. Several good sources. He is the top of his sport with a World Championship final. WP:GNG applies. As well as point #7 at wikipedia:NTRACK which makes him notable within Wikipedia:Notability (sports).BabbaQ (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just cleaned up the article a bit. I'll withdraw my nomination if you can find the WP:THREE best sources demonstrating his notability. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find any results for this person in my searches, no sources at all. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are not good This is a 1 line mention, this and this are databases. This is a results listings. We need indepth third party sources which is lacking here. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the analysis of LibStar. JunkBorax (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... if I were to guess why no one can find "[any] sources at all", I'd say its probably because he's Chinese, and they don't use English script in China, and it seems no one has looked for sources using whatever his Chinese name may be... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard can you find any sources? The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping. The sources I found were the same as those already listed by other editors in this discussion. Cunard (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep, asking for a relist. As opposed to so many others, this guy is actually a competitor on the international elite level. The article has been expanded as well. Though only one of the Chinese sources look in-depth, we should take some time to look for even more, as well as the above commenters weighing in on the expansion. Geschichte (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching for Chinese sources, I couldn't find any sigcov. Sources mostly focus on his participation at the World Athletics Indoor Championships in Nanjing, where he placed 14th. [1][2][3][4] None of these are really enough to count as sigcov and I don't think he meets any of the NATH criteria. Toadspike [Talk] 09:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on my expansion using new sources I found. Note that almost all of the above comments were made before the new sources were found, and while I respect User:Toadspike's comment I am not sure if they understood that the above !votes were made before the expansion.

The SINA article goes far beyond the subject's participation at the world championships, going in detail about his life since age 11. Subject also has a long history of notable performance before the World Champs this year going back over nine years, as detailed in the article. Subject is at the peak of his career and was only one second off the Chinese record, and I would expect that several more pieces in will be written about him following the 2025 Diamond League season which begins in China this year. Based on his regional medals I think there's definitely more than what I've found – Google is banned in China so I feel like a fool trying to search his name on Google and expecting relevant results, but even given that major caveat I think we've been able to construct a WP:BASIC-compliant article so far. --Habst (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that article is indeed very good...I can't let the predicting the future slide, though – we have to decide now whether he is notable based on sources that exist now, and the state of the article is irrelevant to his notability. If you have any more sources up your sleeve, though, I'd be happy to take a look. Toadspike [Talk] 15:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - The article have been improved since nomination. And the sources in the article now establishes notability. BabbaQ (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I completely disagree; the current version of the article does not establish notability. None of the citations in the article are significant enough to count towards the GNG. We have one (1) source with significant coverage and it's not included in the article yet, putting us very far from a WP:HEY. Still no-one has been able to explain how a 14th-place finish meets any NATH criterion. And, to my astonishment, not even Cunard was able to find more sources. I am unstriking my delete !vote. Toadspike [Talk] 21:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments even when we disagree. If you're referring to the SINA article above, that actually is included in the article now. NATH has always been subordinate to the general notability guideline, which can be met in a variety of ways including by WP:NEXIST. What is the reason we would expect Cunard to have found more sources? --Habst (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the great rescue work done by Habst. The newly-found Sina.com source is excellent and indicates notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that participants can review newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: at the very worst, the outcome should be draftify which is the preferred outcome when a person who looks somewhat/semi-notable might become even more notable in the next 6 months. That means until 1 October 2025, covering the entire 2025 season in the sport of athletics. Geschichte (talk) 08:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Geschichte. We are not at GNG yet. GNG requires multiple reliable secondary sources with independent and significant coverage. What was there before did not meet these criteria as discussed. Habst added 3 sources, but two are from the same outlet [5] and thus count as one for GNG (and that is without going into detail of the other criteria for the source, such as whether the coverage is independent), and the other source is very much a passing mention. But the passing mention is of what this Chinese outlet sees as a future hope. Although we don't keep pages that don't meet GNG, Geschichte is right to flag that this one may become notable next season. Incubating the article in draft space is an acceptable WP:ATD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets notability per added sources in the article. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article made in March 2025. It does not look notable and sources are whatever. It should be improved in draftspace, before coming to mainspace. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are quite clear for notability.BabbaQ (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only found two sources about him (This and this) So he's a non-notable Chinese track and field runner. An editor from Mars (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is an incorrect statement per article.BabbaQ (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Avram

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

Does not have enough coverage to meet WP:NSPORT requirements. Darkm777 (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Darkm777 (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not as clear notability as the others, but she was a world championship medalist and Olympedia includes a photo that looks recent from the Sportarad newspaper, which indicates that they likely covered her. What we have to do is find it. Its also quite likely there'd be further offline coverage, given her accomplishments took place before the internet. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORT does not state that Olympic Medal Winners are automatically qualified. Rowing does not have its own policy, but some sports such as Track & Field do and state that "Significant coverage is likely to exist for athletes who compete in the field of athletics if they meet any of the criteria below." One of the criteria is to have Top 8 placement in a major competition, but even then we need to have significant news coverage. Could you point me out to any specific policy that states Olympic medal winners automatically qualify? Darkm777 (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where in my above comment did I say that Olympic Medal Winners are automatically qualified? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No sports guideline grants automatic notability to anyone, but for what it's worth, Olympic medal winners are mentioned at WP:NOLY. Geschichte (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Olympics, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Regards (CP) 22:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mochan (novel)

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

Another book by the author Tulasi Acharya, whose own wiki article was recently deleted due to No compelling keep arguments, LLMs, one-edit accounts, highly dodgy sourcing, and some of the most blatant COI promotion I've seen on Wikipedia for a long time. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex, Gender and Disability in Nepal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Running from the Dreamland, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swapnabhumi (Nepali novel) for previous discussion of this author's books.

I believe this novel, like the others, fails WP:NBOOK. Full source review in the comments below. Astaire (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reviewing the sources currently in the article:
- Source 1: A review with over-the-top praise but little critical analysis: Receiving a degree in English literature was just the beginning for him. Acharya’s appetite for more knowledge only amplified, and he joined Kennesaw State University to pursue an MA in creative writing... I think a novel of this stature must be read all over the world. Highly suspect.
- Source 2 and Source 3 are links to the publisher's website. Not independent.
- Source 4: An article by the author himself. Not independent.
- Source 5 and Source 7 are articles about events the author held to promote the book. They fail WP:NBOOK criterion #1: This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
- Source 6 and Source 10: The same review hosted on two different web portals, "OSNepal" and "Arthik Awaj". In both cases, published without a byline. Doesn't seem reliable to me and would only count as one review anyway for the purposes of WP:NBOOK.
- Source 8: A review on what appears to be a literature blog. Not reliable per WP:SPS.
- Source 9: A review published in the newspaper República. In the AFD discussion for Running from the Dreamland, one of the reviews of that book was also from República, and the review's author appeared to have a personal connection with the book's author. I would suggest not treating this source as reliable for reviews for that reason.

Astaire (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Nepal. Astaire (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per your reasons. An editor from Mars (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This book fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pazar3

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

Pazar3 is a Macedonian online marketplace founded in 2006. This marketplace lacks significant coverage by reliable independent sources. The page was created by this account Pazar3 Macedonia (talk · contribs). LastJabberwocky (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. LastJabberwocky (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LastJabberwocky (talk) 20:34, 5 April 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 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Skyfire

AfDs for this article:

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

Same problems the article had years ago, when the article was deleted. A local wrestler who worked on independent promotions. No notable. Sources are just WP:ROUTINE results, with no in-deep coverage or focus around the wrestler. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and Alabama. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Jakob

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

Non-notable self-promo page, sources do not show that the subject is WP:NOTE. TansoShoshen (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 5 April 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 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U-15 European Baseball Championship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U-12 European Baseball Championship and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 European Juveniles Baseball Championship. No indication of notability. Fails to meet WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Baseball, and Europe. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zadarma

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

The article was full of brand content references. Without these citations, no reliable reference was found on the Internet about this company. Please note that the same article was created in French and Spanish by a single-purpose account. Thanks, Framawiki (please notify me when you reply) 18:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thanks, Framawiki (please notify me when you reply) 18:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Bulgaria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ferrer

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

Non-notable person. Doesn't meet WP:GNG because none of the sources discuss him as a person, but simply mention his job title and/or are articles writrten by him. The man himself has not received significant coverage. Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. Doesn't meat WP:ANYBIO. Amisom (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Judaism, England, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alison MacInnis

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

Redirected but restored. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, no references. Should be deleted as no obvious single redirect target has significant information beyond a mention about this person. Draftify most appropriate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is pointless. She and her character became famous on their Power Rangers thing a long time ago, it should never be deleted. 31.22.146.236 (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Photography, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Power Rangers cast members#Power Rangers Lightspeed Rescue (2000) (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- In my searches for sources, I found only passing mentions like this and this as well as two sentences of coverage here. She is quoted in this article in ComicBook.com, which is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Inconclusive discussions. There is insufficient coverage for Alison MacInnis to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I think the Power Rangers cast members list is a good redirect target since all mentions of her on Wikipedia are related to the Power Rangers franchise. Cunard (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Golshani

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

There's no indication of notability as per WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. The subject probably passes WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of a legislative body SCCR, but it's good to reach a clearer consensus. Xpander (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Xpander (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, WP:SK3. What is the point of starting an AfD when the nomination statement itself states that the subject probably passes a notability criterion, WP:NPOL? But for the record I think he also has a good case for WP:PROF #C2 (Templeton prize), #C3 (Academy of Sciences of Iran), and #C5 (distinguished professor), so the nomination claim of "no indication of notability" through academic notability is both a WP:VAGUEWAVE and completely erroneous. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein. As for #C5 I couldn't find any independent sources for the distinction claim. As for #C2 how is "winner of a course program" and a "former judge" notable? As for #C3 it has hundreds of members most of which are not notable. So I don't think it passes WP:PROF as suggested. Xpander (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point. Why would you nominate a former member of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution for deletion when you say yourself that it's enough for NPOL? People who are notable need only be notable for one thing; even if you don't believe he is notable as an academic, notability as a politician is enough. For that matter, he's also likely not notable as an athlete (because we have no record of any athletic accomplishments) nor as a musician (likewise); do you think that should be a valid rationale to delete someone notable as a politician? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @David Eppstein I certainly respect your points. The issue with SCCR is that it is not a de jure legislative body, and if it is, it is not a common one, i.e. as compared to the US, UK etc. where the only legislature is the Congress/Parliament/Assembly. On their website they mention:
  
  The duties of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution can be divided into three areas: policymaking, regulation development, and supervision^[1].
  
  So it doesn't say lawmaking specifically, although it is mentioned in their by-law, that in case of needing law-changes they can ask the corresponding body to provide the necessary arrangements:
  
  Article 32 - If the Supreme Council resolution requires a law, regulation, or resources to be implemented, the matter will be sent to the head of the relevant authority or the highest official of the relevant body for legal procedures to be carried out, in order to provide the necessary arrangements.^[2]
  
  So maybe it could be interpreted as an executive body rather than a legislative one? That's why I said probably. Some editors have rejected the notability claim based on membership of this body. So the rationale was to reach as clear a consensus as possible. Xpander (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "درباره شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی". sccr.ir. Retrieved 2025-04-06.
^ "شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی". sccr.ir. Retrieved 2025-04-06.

Walter Demmelhuber

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

For someone with such a long list of research publications, I would have expected a higher citation count than 65. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and I don't see that they pass WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any possible case for WP:NPROF notability — the subject is a guest professor with just 65 total citations and doesn't have any other research activity as far as I can tell. I also couldn't find any coverage of his business career outside of press releases about his board memberships, so I don't see any case for WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GALAX

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

Reconrabbit prodded with the rationale, "Does not meet WP:NCORP; organization has not received substantial, independent coverage in its 30+ years of existence that I could find. Most sources are press releases or are covering Nvidia more than this group (which may get passing mention), and searching brings up a location in Virigina.", which is precisely what my searches turned up as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Hong Kong. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Wen, Zhao 闻钊 (2008-05-19). "9600GT显卡深度超频" [9600GT graphics card deep overclocking]. China Computer Education (in Chinese).
  The review notes: "Galaxy Xtreme Tuner软件由影驰自主研发，并随该厂的GeForce 9600GT HDMI显卡附送，暂时只适用于该显卡。打开软件的控制面板，大家会发现其界面与其他厂商的显卡超频软件颇为相似，主要提供Shader频率、图形核心频率及显存频率调整功能，前两者还可设置为非同步模式进行调整，而且幅度极大。"
  From Google Translate: "Galaxy Xtreme Tuner software is independently developed by Galaxy and comes with the GeForce 9600GT HDMI graphics card of the factory. It is only applicable to this graphics card for the time being. Open the control panel of the software, you will find that its interface is quite similar to other manufacturers' graphics card overclocking software, mainly providing shader frequency, graphics core frequency and video memory frequency adjustment functions. The first two can also be set to asynchronous mode for adjustment, and the amplitude is very large."
  The article notes: "根据笔者个人所作测试来看，在默认模式中把图形核心和内存频率提高，并把Shader频率设置为与核心频率同步，而风扇供电则保持为“Auto”模式。测试结果发现，预设频率为650/1800MHz的影驰9600GT显卡的最高图形核心超频能力为777MHz，显存则可超频到2266MHz，3DMark06测试得分由11382分提高到11715分，性能增幅为2.9%。"
  From Google Translate: "According to the author's personal test, the graphics core and memory frequencies are increased in the default mode, and the Shader frequency is set to synchronize with the core frequency, while the fan power supply remains in "Auto" mode. The test results show that the maximum graphics core overclocking capability of the Galaxy 9600GT graphics card with a preset frequency of 650/1800MHz is 777MHz, and the video memory can be overclocked to 2266MHz. The 3DMark06 test score increased from 11382 points to 11715 points, and the performance increase was 2.9%."
2. "回眸09显卡风云年度十大精品显卡全程回顾" [Looking back at the graphics card industry in 2009, a full review of the top ten graphics cards of the year] (in Chinese). China News Service. 2009-12-15.
  The article notes: "影驰9600GT中将版显卡采用了非公版PCB设计，使用了全封闭式电感搭配日本化工固态电容，整体做工扎实，用料非常不错。... 踏入2009年，首先值得我们记忆的就有影驰9600GT中将，这款显卡在08年的12月初就以699元的低价示人，这款显卡拥有强劲的供电配置、相当有个性的散热系统，加上默认高频以及低廉的售价，在09年的市场上就率先火了一把!以笔者的记忆，当时可谓受到众多的DIYer关注，几乎全国都出现有价无货的场面。而影驰9600GT中将在2009年的率先获得成功，除了产品的质量之外，很大程度上也要多得影驰市场运营上的成熟，与对消费者消费独到理解。而笔者认为影驰9600GT中将如果失去了一群出色的市场营销人员，那么它的确会失色不少。"
  From Google Translate: "The GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition graphics card uses a non-public version PCB design, uses a fully enclosed inductor with a Japanese chemical solid capacitor, and has a solid overall workmanship and very good materials. ... Entering 2009, the first thing worth remembering is the GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition. This graphics card was shown at the beginning of December 2008 at a low price of 699 yuan. This graphics card has a strong power supply configuration, a very unique cooling system, a default high frequency and a low price. It was the first to become popular in the market in 2009! As far as I remember, it attracted the attention of many DIYers at that time, and there was a situation of being out of stock almost all over the country. The GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition was the first to succeed in 2009. In addition to the quality of the product, it was also largely due to the maturity of GALAX's market operations and its unique understanding of consumer consumption. And the author believes that if the GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition lost a group of outstanding marketing personnel, it would indeed lose a lot of color."
3. "追求最高性价比超值中高端显卡推荐" [Pursuing the highest cost-effectiveness, high-end graphics cards recommended] (in Chinese). China News Service. 2009-08-03.
  The review notes: "影驰的显卡性价比一项很不错，特别是近期热卖的GTS250骨灰上将版，上市价为899元，而且还送NV原装键盘，有着738/2200MHz的核心显存频率，性价比非常好。影驰 GTS250骨灰上将版其核心采用55nm制程工艺，拥有128个流处理器，支持Phsyx物理引擎、CUDA并行运算，可以为游戏玩家提供更真实的游戏体验，性能相当强劲。制程工艺的提高，意味着产品成本的降低与功耗、发热量的降低，这无疑使得产品性价比更高了。"
  From Google Translate: "GALAX graphics cards have a very good price-performance ratio, especially the GTS250 Hardcore Admiral Edition, which is popular recently. The listing price is 899 yuan, and it also comes with an NV original keyboard. It has a core memory frequency of 738/2200MHz, which is very cost-effective. The GALAX GTS250 Hardcore Admiral Edition uses a 55nm process technology, has 128 stream processors, supports Phsyx physics engine and CUDA parallel computing, and can provide gamers with a more realistic gaming experience. The performance is quite strong. The improvement of the process technology means the reduction of product costs and power consumption and heat generation, which undoubtedly makes the product more cost-effective."
4. "影驰9600GT中将版" [GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition]. 电脑商情报 [Computer Business Information] (in Chinese). 2008-08-05. ISSN 1003-9082.
  The review notes: "影驰9600GT中将版采用独特的非公版设计，PCB颜色沿用了影驰出道以来管用的深蓝色。影驰这款中将版Geforce9600GT并没有因为使用非公版而降低产品规格，无论在产品PCB设计还是用料做工上都不亚于公版产品。影驰9600GT中将版采用台积电(TSMC)使用65nm工艺设计的G94-300-A1核心，其拥有5.5亿晶体管和64个流处理器及12个光栅处理器，默认核心、Shader频率分别为公版的650MHz/1625MHz。"
  From Google Translate: "GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition adopts a unique non-public version design, and the PCB color continues to use the dark blue that has been used since GALAX debuted. GALAX's Lieutenant Edition Geforce9600GT has not lowered its product specifications due to the use of a non-public version. Both the product PCB design and the materials and workmanship are no less than the public version. GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition uses the G94-300-A1 core designed by TSMC using a 65nm process. It has 550 million transistors, 64 stream processors and 12 raster processors. The default core and shader frequencies are 650MHz/1625MHz of the public version."
5. Sun, Shangwei 孙尚伟 (2008-05-28). "影驰9600gso 龙骨散热的魅力" [The charm of the GALAX 9600GSO keel cooling]. Beijing Times (in Chinese).
  The review notes: "影驰　９６００ｇｓｏ中将版是影驰将官军衔系列中比较热门的一款，采用三星１．２ｎｓ　ｇｄｄｒ３颗粒，容量３８４ｍｂ，实现５７５╱１６００ｍｈｚ的默认频率。它沿用了影驰８８００系列时代起采用的经典非公版ｐｃｂ，供电设计更加安全。来自酷冷的龙骨风格热管散热器有着比公版更高的散热效率和更低的噪音水平，是这款显卡最大的看点所在。　　"
  From Google Translate: "GALAX 9600GSO Lieutenant General Edition is a popular model in the GALAX general rank series. It uses Samsung 1.2NS GDDRR3 particles, 384MB capacity, and achieves a default frequency of 575/1600MHz. It uses the classic non-public version PCB adopted by GALAX 8800 series, and the power supply design is safer. The keel style heat pipe radiator from Cool Cool has higher heat dissipation efficiency and lower noise level than the public version, which is the biggest highlight of this graphics card."
6. "林世強博士奮發創建電競品牌專注自強熱心公益" [Dr. Lin Shiqiang works hard to create an e-sports brand, focusing on self-improvement and being enthusiastic about charity]. Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). 2018-08-26. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "經歷了屢敗屢戰的艱苦磨礪，林世強博士終於找到事業發展的新契機。2000年，影馳攜手全球電腦顯卡芯片製造龍頭公司NVIDIA，拓展電腦顯卡市場，影馳並且正式成為NVIDIA的核心夥伴。及至2003年，林世強博士正式推出全球市場戰略，他以創新科研為自主品牌的核心，以遊戲玩家為重心推行中高端發展路線，以「專注、多元、創新、重質」為經營理念，目前公司擁有齊全的產品線，除了主要的顯示卡外，還有固態硬碟、記憶體、主機板與鍵盤等，在業內取得良好口碑，每年逾數百萬件顯卡及電腦配件產品，遠銷至世界各地，包括東南亞、歐洲、南美洲、南非等地。"
  From Google Translate: "After experiencing the hardships of repeated failures, Dr. Lin Shiqiang finally found a new opportunity for career development. In 2000, GALAX joined hands with NVIDIA, the world's leading computer graphics card chip manufacturer, to expand the computer graphics card market, and GALAX officially became NVIDIA's core partner. In 2003, Dr. Lin Shiqiang officially launched the global market strategy. He took innovative scientific research as the core of the independent brand, promoted the mid-to-high-end development route with gamers as the focus, and took "focus, diversity, innovation, and quality" as the business philosophy. The company currently has a complete product line. In addition to the main graphics cards, there are also solid-state drives, memory, motherboards and keyboards, etc., and has gained a good reputation in the industry. Every year, more than millions of graphics cards and computer accessories are sold all over the world, including Southeast Asia, Europe, South America, South Africa and other places."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow GALAX (simplified Chinese: 影驰; traditional Chinese: 影馳) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That all seems fairly convincing. I obviously didn't find any of these, not even on other language Wikipedia articles for the subject. If incorporated into the article it would make a good case for renoving the maintenance tenplates present. Recon rabbit 22:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Top PHP Studio

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

Fails WP:NSOFT; can't find any coverage besides a master's thesis, which is unreliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The "review" in the article is not actually a review since it just briefly describes the software with no independent analysis. Not to be confused with PHP Studio by Neometric Software (the developer of this IDE is Cayoren Software) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shine On (Jet song)

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

Non-notable song. 0 coverage in sources. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United Kingdom. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: For the most part all non-notable songs can be redirected to albums, and non-notable albums can be redirected to band/musician page. This one can be redirected to Shine On (Jet album). LastJabberwocky (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above reason. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 08:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kattumaram (film)

AfDs for this article:

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

Not Notable. concerns regarding notability and verifiability, as outlined in Wikipedia's content policies. For a film to be deemed notable, it must receive significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. While Kattumaram has been reviewed by several outlets, the depth and prominence of this coverage are limited. For instance, Asian Movie Pulse provides a review that, although positive, does not constitute the extensive coverage required to establish notability. Similarly, BollySpice.com offers a review, but its reach and influence are not substantial enough to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Additionally, the film's listing on platforms like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, which include brief synopses and user-generated content, do not serve as independent, reliable sources for establishing notability. Furthermore, the article's reliance on such sources may violate Wikipedia's verifiability policy, which mandates that information be backed by reputable, third-party publications. Without substantial, independent coverage, the article does not meet the criteria set forth in Wikipedia's notability guidelines for films, making it a candidate for deletion. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Asian Movie Pulse is generally accepted for notability and Now Toronto seems reliable enough. All in all, notability seems sufficient for a stand-alone page; a redirect is warranted, absolutely (released, verifiable, notable director+actor, coverage) -Mushy Yank. 10:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+Technically a WP:NFILM pass for another reason: screened >5 years after release (released in June 2019) https://birminghamindianfilmfestival.co.uk/kattumaram-catamaran/ and https://londonindianfilmfestival.co.uk/kattumaram-catamaran/ and the Global Indian stories source seems acceptable too.-Mushy Yank. 12:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "For a film to be deemed notable, it must receive significant coverage from independent, reliable sources." Notability is not one-size-fits-all. This is a film and there are thousands of films produced globally that do not get to be reviewed by mainstream media (The New York Times, The Guardian, Variety, etc.). More often than not, the only reviews for a film will be found in niche publications. There are even film blogs and websites that are considered reliable sources because they are recognized within the film industry. Kattumaram was released in film festivals. It was included in Channel 4's annual Indian cinema showcase in 2020. It was a special screening at Wesleyan University in 2021. Six years after its premiere, it continues to be included in academic film events. Frameline is the Frameline Film Festival and a legitimate, reliable source for films with non-heterosexual subjects. The Hindu is a reliable newspaper. The New Indian Express is an edition of The Indian Express, which is a reliable source. Now Toronto (Now) is a reliable Canadian newspaper. The Times of India article is an interview with the filmmaker and from what I saw in it, is acceptable. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ 12:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I expanded the article to improve its notability per WP:HEY. The Times of India articles source that was added is an interview with an actor not the filmmaker and is a passing mention. DareshMohan (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not satisfied with frameline source that has been misrepresented as critical review. That leaves only one review by Now Toronto. If anyone can find one more critical review from reliable sources, please let me know. Interviews are not secondary independent source. RangersRus (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to Asian films, it's not easy to find reviews for them outside of Asia-related newspapers, websites, magazines; unless a film is groundbreaking, or becomes a critics darling, or gets word-of-mouth recommendations, or wins awards. Particularly when they are independent films. That's the reality of non-West films. Kattumaram is reviewed in High on Films, Apt613, and Asian Movie Pulse. (RottenTomatoes does take some of High on Films RT1 and AMP RT2 reviews into consideration). It has been included in a handful of academic papers about Indian cinema. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ 05:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Asian Movie Pulse and Now Toronto look to be sufficient sources. Alternately a redirect to List of Tamil films of 2019 would be a reasonable ATD. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:24, 5 April 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD A3 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2029 in American television

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

The article was moved to draft space but the user moved it back to main space. Applying WP:BEFORE , I didn't find significant coverages about the topic it's basically WP:TOOSOON. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, History, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A lot can change between now and 2029; I'm not entirely convinced we'll know enough about what is even planned for 2029 television until at least 2028. It's simply too soon; even.returning to draft would be premature here. Given that the only "content" here is simply the basic framework for "year in American television" articles, this arguably might be a borderline A3 candidate. (Not to bring up the proverbial other stuff that exists, but the same creator also created 2027 in American television and 2028 in American television with similarly-minimal content—only the 2027 one has non-framework content, and that's an unsourced claim added by an IP— and should probably also be considered for deletion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A3, empty list. There might not even be a United States in 2029. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:42, 5 April 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Meme IDE

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. Only coverage that isn't the product's own website is in press releases ([6]) and unreliable blogs and forums (ginktage.com, androidflow.com are defunct blogs). Deproded in 2011. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:41, 5 April 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 19:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Le Masne

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

Does not appear to have sufficient valid secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG. Source #1 is a press release. Source #2 & #3 are interviews. The other sources are passing mentions. All sources also seem to be related to one event where the subject organized the music at the Olympics. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 16:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easy keep. He composed the theme for the Paris Olympics.. [7], [8], [9]. Source 3 in the article is also a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 17:53, 5 April 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Nick Bilton

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

Article was created by a sockpuppet account named "Novonium", since blocked indefinitely, in 2012. The article appears to have a pretty rich editing history by socks, also since blocked, in the years following its creation. There is a strong WP:DENY argument to be made alone for deleting this article.

Additionally, most of the sources mention Nick Bilton in passing or refer to works of his but are not about the man himself. Therefore, though articles about some of Bilton's work might be notable, the subject matter BLP, Bilton, is himself not notable and the article should be deleted. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, England, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some reviews of his books [10], [11], an article in Variety [12]. Oaktree b (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Source 10 is also a book review, this would likely pass AUTHOR with at least three book reviews in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of the WP:DENY rationale for deletion? I think it is likely that this person paid to have their article created, or did it themselves with a sock account. Either way, it has a rich history of editing by blocked sock accounts. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23rd Field Artillery Regiment (United States)

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

Non-notable army regiment with only a single mention in a book from 1953. Fails WP:GNG. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 15:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable unit. I can find it mentioned in several books on the Baatan campaign, [13][14][15][16] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean they are there, but that is really all they are, brief mentions and footnotes. Not really the WP:SIGCOV needed to pass WP:GNG. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 20:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than enough to create an an article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Johannes Heinrich of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

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

The article's significance is not shown. He was born after the overthrow of the monarchy and was never a prince. The article mainly shows genealogical information. RobertVikman ^Discussion 15:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Austria. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find much significant coverage from a cursory search, just ancestry pages D1551D3N7 (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Korenya Shingetsuan

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. This content should be placed under a food of Japan or cuisine type article and does not need a split article by itself. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

House of Fine Art

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

Was deleted back 2018, with a "The" in the title, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The House of Fine Art. Justlettersandnumbers's rationale from back then still holds. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Museums and libraries, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, placing "The" in front of the article name does not suddenly make an article notable. It was not notable when deleted in 2018, and remains so today after a google search. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it's nice of Onel5969 to draw attention to my nomination of this for deletion in 2018 (thank you, 1L!). However, what stands out in that discussion is not my small contribution but the clear understanding of policy shown by two editors, Jytdog and NitinMlk. I encourage those who plan to contribute to this discussion to read through the previous one first. The new article seems to be a borderline WP:G4 candidate, by the way, but probably best to let this run now that it has started. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a speedy delete per WP:G4 would make sense, but I think it is looking like it will be deleted anyway if the current trend on this AfD holds. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. It seems this gallery was not notable in 2018 and is still not notable. The sources consist of a short Forbes contributor PR piece on the gallery; the KIAF Seoul pieces is a modified press release; ArtNet is a subscription service for galleries and their listings, their "reviews" are not the same as serious art magazines and besides, it's a dead 404 link; The first Financial Times source is an article about NFT's with a mention of HOFA in one sentence, it is not an article about the gallery; the second FT source is about the artists, not about the gallery itself. Netherzone (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Finley (businessman)

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

There are brief mentions here and here but none of them are in-depth enough to pass WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medal For the Construction of Transport Facilities (Russia)

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

Definitely exists. Could find several mentions of it being awarded, but not any in-depth coverage. Might be due to the language barrier, and if someone can find them in cyrillic, let me know. But as of now, does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can read Russian and there is nothing more than "it's exits" (from this document ПОЛОЖЕНИЕ о медали "За строительство транспортных объектов") and description of it (from this document ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ к Положению о медали "За строительство транспортных объектов"). Plus a person can be awarded this medal "Почетный работник транспорта России" and a few other medals, if they already have "Medal For the Construction of Transport Facilities" (from "ПОЛОЖЕНИЕ о нагрудном знаке "Почетный работник транспорта России"). LastJabberwocky (talk) 21:17, 5 April 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert David Siegel

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

This biographical article does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:GNG, and I do not believe WP:NPROF is met, either. bonadea contributions talk 11:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 11:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTFB, WP:SIGCOV, WP:PROF, and WP:AUTOBIO. Everyone whose head isn't under a rock knows that we are not LinkedIn or Facebook, but that's exactly what this is. Every single one of the sources is by the subject, rather than about him, so it fails significant coverage. He's a clinical or teaching professor, not a tenure-track research professor. Nothing wrong with that; so was I, but he fails the PROF test. Finally, I'm not going to get into why, in 2025, autobiographical material here is an existential threat to us, because I've written about it elsewhere, or just pick up a copy of the New Yorker. Bearian (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Bearian. WP:PROF is not met for notability give the currently cited sources or those available from a google search. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:45, 5 April 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Fifth power (politics)

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

Seems to be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Fifth Estate. Also considered proposing a WP:Merge but the content of this article is poorly sourced and unsuitable for a merge. WP:BEFORE at the very least does not show this to be an independent concept. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Politics, Economics, and Internet. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Homely.com.au

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

None of the cited sources are in-depth enough to pass WP:NCORP, nor are they reliable to begin with. In my WP:BEFORE, I found nothing in Australian publications (not even a mention in reliable sources). Gheus (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the reasons provided by @Gheus.

RedactedHumanoid (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I was surprised just how little there is about this company — it seems to have had some moderate success, but hasn't attracted even a mention in the RS publications like the AFR that I would normally expect. All I could find were press releases and routine coverage in WP:TRADES publications. Don't see anything that could possibly count towards WP:NCORP. MCE89 (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Shaftel

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to show they pass GNG. The two obits are paid spots. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I can find is brief mentions of him in real estate notices as the architect of a house or housing estate, and brief quotes from him about the features of his designs. None of this amounts to the significant coverage needed for WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE notability. And his academic position does not have any evidence of WP:PROF notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than a trivial amount of mentions in older architectural magazines [17], book mentions [18]. Clicking on the Gbooks link above brings up many mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that if you just click on "Find Sources" on this nomination template, several options are there to find the sources. — Maile (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eren Legend (bodybuilder)

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

Previously soft-deleted for lack of notability. I doubt the topic has since become notable. Janhrach (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, Bodybuilding, and Canada. Janhrach (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Rohr

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

While accomplished, I cannot find enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I went through the first four pages of googlehits and there is probably something to work with [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] Geschichte (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Rohr is, as the nom said, accomplished, and the reliable sources available from a google search are enough to pass GNG. I agree with Geschicte and support a Keep of this article with a possible nudge to continue work on it.Iljhgtn (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources in the comment above seem ok, enough to confirm notability. They're in German but easy enough to translate. Oaktree b (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Party (Bolivia)

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

This appears to be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK to me. The subject is well covered in the existing article History of Bolivia (1809–1920). m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 13:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Politics, and Bolivia. Shellwood (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this topic is thoroughly addressed and provides a far more comprehensive perspective compared to the current article. Averytiredturkey3 (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A major ruling political party is one of those things that is obviously going to have significant coverage. I do not buy the argument of this being a fork of a general "history of" article; those articles are merely broad overviews (as an equivalent, it'd be like saying why have Workers' Party of Korea when we have History of North Korea). Article is in poor state, but here is a paper in English which seems to cover the party in depth. I did not search in Spanish, but I imagine there is additional coverage in that language. Curbon7 (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a major political party in Bolivia. An editor from Mars (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - hardly a fork, and clearly passes WP:GNG by any standard. --Soman (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Alexander

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

Hijacked redirect. Current subject does not meet WP:GNG. If kept, should be moved to Lewis Alexander (actor) and the redirect turned into a dab. But I can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they meet GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are people less notable than him who have articles. So, I don't see why it should be deleted and I don't think it needs to be moved since the name isn't taken by someone else. Spectritus (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We discuss articles and if they should be included according to Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. Your reply is unrelated to any of those, so please consider making a policy-based argument. Geschichte (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brayton Knapp

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, New York, Oregon, and Washington. Let'srun (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avathuvadi

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

Could not find this town in 2011 census of India. As the census does include villages with small or no population, lack of this town's presence in the census seems to indicate lack of legal recognition for WP:GEOLAND. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and India. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this can be deleted Rupesh Kumar Saigal (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DirectX plugin

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

Fails WP:GNG UtherSRG (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman occupation of southern Iranian lands (1821)

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

Another non-WP:NOTABLE article part of this "Slicing history into pieces" trend. In that section, I originally proposed to simply redirect this to its main article Ottoman–Iranian War (1821–1823) and move its sourced content over there (another user suggested a merge, same same I guess). However, now taking another look at this article and the war article, I guess a deletion nomination is for the best, since this event is described in mere 2 lines in the "Ottoman invasion of Qajar lands" section, which lacks context. The "Qajar counterattack" section (not event part of this event) is already somewhat described in the war article. And most importantly of all, there is no special event named "Ottoman occupation of southern Iranian lands" in WP:RS, this is a invented name. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? You are angry with me and want to be hostile to me. Let me create my page. Don't worry about me. I have read more about the Qajar-Ottoman war than you, don't worry. Eminİskandarli (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article on the Ottoman–Iranian War isn't particularly long and doesn't need splitting, the current sourcing situation doesn't justify a standalone article either, and the article is filled with information about the war in general and not the one battle it is (according to the lead paragraph) supposed to be about. Cortador (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Iran, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I do not know what kind of personal feuding appears to be going on above, but this article after review is lacking in the depth of coverage to have a article unto itself. Merge the content if needed and do not split for the sake of it. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merge any useful content first. This article and some others were created by way of an offline dispute (so I was told). I'd been waiting for the editors to burn out, then sort it out. Yet, with bad faith disputes, all roads lead to AfD, ANI, blocks. Think about a detailed featured article on the Ottoman–Iranian War (1821–1823) and don't worry about splitting off separate articles. This will require you to work together, and not create safe spaces based on the infobox |result= field, with occasional raids into opposing articles. It's been art imitating real events. -- GreenC 16:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Support per nom. Insanityclown1 (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Support per nom. Kajmer05 (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tafasir Al Quran

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

This is not a work authored by Mulla Sadra. The book was published later by someone who compiled various aspects of Mulla Sadra's writings. In this case, I find no notability for the book under WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 11:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Iran. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 11:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Persiram Raja Ampat

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

Contested redirect - can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of football clubs in Indonesia#West Papua – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 11:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice of Peace (Ukraine)

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:N. Deleted in Ukrainian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Ukraine. Mitte27 (talk) 10:50, 5 April 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thushara Cooray

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

Fails WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. Merely just having a few coverage in news articles for appearing in his 100th Test as a scorer doesn't demonstrate significant coverage per WP:1E. Robo^Cric Let's chat 07:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: according to google news search this is the only news site mentioning him; so fails WP:SIGCOV of WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 09:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage.Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is other coverage, from other years, found in a Google search, including this [24] in the Deccan Herald and this [25] in the Sri Lankan Sunday Times, both of which describe how he says "rahu kalam" (inauspicious time) when announcing dismissals, and that he has become known by that term to journalists. The second of those sources says that he received 2 awards at the inaugural Sri Lanka Cricket Scorers Association Awards in 2016, for most popular scorer and for his services as a scorer for nearly three decades, involving over 300 international matches. There are also articles saying that he has been manager of the Sri Lankan under 15 cricket team (eg this [26], and others which are paywalled). There is probably more coverage in other languages (eg Sinhalese in his home country, and other languages in countries he has visited as manager or scorer.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the "other coverage" still amounts to only "passing mentions" and not substantive enough for GNG or SIGCOV. This article should be deleted then as failing to be notable. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:36, 5 April 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

32-bit disk access

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Nom's only contributions have only been deletion votes or creations with zero contribs in article space (likely not their first new account rodeo) and the subject has two sources to pass GNG. Nom also advances no argument beyond a WP cite, so they could be asking for deletion because someone cut them off in traffic and we wouldn't really know. Nathannah • 📮 18:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should try to be objective and express any concern about deleting the article, and not about other editors. 85.48.187.219 (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is subject to scrutiny for why and how they brought a deletion and is allowed to be questioned for their rationale if they're purposefully vague and do not have an edit in mainspace. And I'm going to give you a friendly reminder that we look dimly on sockpuppetry. Nathannah • 📮 22:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure this account and IPs are the same user that has been discussed here. It's likely a dynamic IP who doesn't log in for some reason except when nominating at WP:AFD. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The references in the article are not valid references to demonstrate notability. 84.78.243.9 (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No, the nominator and other commenters do matter. For instance, we have a guideline WP:POINT. It certainly doesn't make it better that not only one, but three unknown people show up, the two IPs being from the same European capital city. Geschichte (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's a bit obscure and the article does a poor job of putting it in context. That being said there is some good information here. Probably merge into Windows 3.1 would be a reasonable outcome. Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No cases has been made why the sources listed (even if not included as references) as insufficient. Cortador (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several books cited in a newly added 'Further reading' section (not by me) indicate significant coverage in secondary sources. Looking at Google Books, I can confirm that 32-bit disk access is covered at length in these books. DigitalIceAge (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LEZO (rap group)

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:N. Deleted in Ukrainian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Ukraine. Mitte27 (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aladdin Malikov

AfDs for this article:

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

Was a soft delete through AfD last year, recently challenged. The original nom, Thenightaway's rationale was, "There is no independent reliable sourcing about the subject. They do not meet general notability requirements nor notability requirements for academics or government officials. One of many articles spammed by a ring of editors who are singularly focused on promoting the Azerbaijani government/elites." The resurrected article has zero in-depth sourcing, and I cannot see any indication they pass WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – After reviewing the article and its sources, I do not believe this biography meets Wikipedia’s general notability guideline. While Aladdin Malikov may have academic credentials and publications, the article does not cite any significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources that provide in-depth analysis or commentary on his work or impact. Most of the references appear to be primary sources, such as listings of academic roles or publication records, and some are user-generated or non-independent. There’s a noticeable absence of third-party profiles, interviews, or critical reception— which are essential to establish notability under both WP:GNG and WP:PROF. The article also lacks encyclopedic depth. It reads more like a résumé or institutional bio, focusing on positions held and publications, rather than providing sourced, contextual information about influence, recognition, or broader relevance. Unless stronger sources can be provided, I believe deletion is the appropriate outcome.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:43, 5 April 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Victoria

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

Looks like an autobiography. It was PROD deleted before and now brought back with no real improvement in sourcing. Still no in-depth, independent coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sources are self-written articles for Longhorns Wire, with nothing independent or substantial to establish notability. Junbeesh (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Junbeesh (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - How many times do folks need to be reminded that we are not LinkedIn? Bearian (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any sourcing about this individual and what's used in the article isn't helpful. Nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:18, 5 April 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The Tortured Poets Department (song)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONG, which specifies that album reviews do not demonstrate notability. Not the subject of multiple non-trivial sources. Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 10:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 10:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first October 2024 AfD nomination ended with a general consensus that although the article failed WP:NSONG, it was nonetheless still suitable for inclusion on the basis that it passed WP:GNG. Since that time, it was promoted to GA status without objection as to notability, reflecting general agreement that the article meets WP:GNG. Unless there is a consensus which has emerged since October 2024 that it is incorrect to keep articles which pass WP:GNG but fail WP:NSONG, I do respectfully think this nomination should be WP:SNOW closed, because there is no substantive change in circumstances between now and the first AfD. Also, there is a Variety piece, a Billboard piece, and a Cosmopolitan piece from last week which discusses the meaning of the lyrics and the song being about Lucy Dacus. There's also other articles from Betches and from Glamour Magazine which discusses the meaning of the lyrics in detail from April 2024. When you combine enduring coverage from April 2024 to March 2025, it already passing an AfD nom, and it being in the Top 10 on many national charts, it clearly passes both WP:GNG and WP:NSONG IMHO. Flip^and Flopped ツ 16:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some analysis of the lyrics in the sources, and the song charted in several countries, seems to be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Meets GNG and NSONG, with separate articles – "the subject of multiple non-trivial sources" – about the lyrics from Entertainment Weekly, NME, Billboard, Variety, etc. Combined with albums reviews, this is already a successful GA. Nominator has not followed WP:BEFORE. Heartfox (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan Stoyanov

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

I'm having a hard time even verifying his birthdate, Soccerway doesn't have it: [27]. Looks like he made 20 professional appearances at best. The only coverage I could find specifically about him, outside databases, is this very short article with quotes. Other articles are passing mentions like match reports but no WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and even problems with WP:V. Geschichte (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jawad_Hassan

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jawad Hassan

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

No indication of notability, poor sources. Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic policy of South Korea

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

No indication of notability, mostly unsourced, poorly written seefooddiet (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like an essay. Poorly sourced. LibStar (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only two sources are for content that can be categorized as trivia. The rest is badly written and some content seems unconnected to the subject. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AFD participants who do not look for sources themselves are barely doing even a third of a proper job. Three of them together show how few people do this properly. We're supposed to be double-checking, not playing follow-the-leader or looking at bad articles and taking them at face value. This is fairly obviously a stub with clear scope for both cleanup and expansion. We Keep those. Uncle G (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Sheng, Edmund Li (2022). "Extra-regional players in the Arctic: EU, China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea". Arctic Opportunities and Challenges: China, Russia and the US Cooperation and Competition. Springer Nature. pp. 129–132. ISBN 9789811912467.
- Leksutina, Yana V.; Zhang, Jian (2022). "Interests of Non-Arctic Asian States in the Region". In Pak, Egor V.; Krivtsov, Artem I.; Zagrebelnaya, Natalia S. (eds.). The Handbook of the Arctic: A Broad and Comprehensive Overview. Springer Nature. pp. 106–107. doi:10.1007/978-981-16-9250-5_6-1. ISBN 9789811692505.
- Park, Young Kil (2020). "Boosting South Korea in a changing Arctic Council: achievements and challenges". In Woon, Chih Y.; Dodds, Klaus (eds.). 'Observing' the Arctic: Asia in the Arctic Council and Beyond. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN 9781839108211.
- Bennett, Mia M. (2017). "The Maritime Tiger: Exploring South Korea's interests and role in the Arctic". In Sinha, Uttam Kumar; Bekkevold, Jo Inge (eds.). Arctic: Commerce, Governance and Policy. Routledge. ISBN 9781317517504.

Point taken but mind the condescension. seefooddiet (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, SIGCOV of this topic found by Uncle G - it's clearly notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources are trivial to find e.g. [1] 2 3 by just copy-pasting the article title into a search engine, including articles by peer-reviewed scientific journals. It's pretty clear that no BEFORE was done here. Cortador (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agreed with the more recent comments regarding WP:BEFORE being inadequately performed after a google review. The sources that are extant more than meet WP:SIGCOV and the article should be kept. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the nominator; think there's a strong argument for keep. seefooddiet (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali Bansal

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the cited sources provide direct and in-depth coverage (WP:NEWSORGINDIA type of sources are not useful). Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can see some in-depth coverage which demonstrates notability for this person. There is significant coverage in reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG. B-Factor (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Amsterdam stabbing attack

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

Minor incident - no deaths. WP:GNG is dubious (consider WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS). Very unlikely to have enduring effects; if they appear the article can be restored once enduring coverage is shown to exist. We are getting really too inclusionist with minor incidents like this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Netherlands. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by the GNG and EVENT. By Dutch standards this is a major attack and the national and international coverage reflects that. The stabbing took place in the very heart of Amsterdam which further contributes to the interest. In the deletion rationale, nominator points at WP:SINGLEEVENT: "People notable for only one event". An attack is not a person so this does not support deletion. WP:NOTNEWS does not support deletion either: For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. The references used fall outside the domain defined by the policy. gidonb (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"By Dutch standards this is a major attack" - yet no Dutch Wikipedia article? And I see this as a routine reporting on a newsworthy but unencyclopedic crime that will be forgotten by everyone in few days._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage continues. Nlwiki is not known for quality. gidonb (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

😅 very convinient explanation Lord Mountbutter (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to help! If you're curious, you can read more about Nlwiki's quality here or check out the ongoing coverage in major Dutch and international media. gidonb (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep broadly covered, it happened in the center of big city. It's terrorist attack, to terror there no need to someone be killed. Many nations involved: US, NL, PL, BE victims, UK citizen's arrest and probably Ukrainian perpetrator; that 6 nations involved. That's international terrorism Bildete (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by the GNG and EVENT. For now the sources and event is notable.BabbaQ (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because Wikipedia:NOTNEWS. Ιf it has a more permanent impact (which I very much doubt) it can be recreated. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you doubt that the Dutch produce books, newspapers, magazines, news shows, and conduct research discussing, among others, mass stabbings? gidonb (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But is this an enduring event? Without that, it's just news that will be forgotten soon if it hasn't been already. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a hot topic every day https://www.dutchnews.nl/2025/04/amsterdam-stabbing-suspect-had-terrorist-intent-investigators/ and will be for a long time. Also it's historical event first event of Ukrainian terrorism in western Europe as 2022 missile explosion in Poland and it happened in city center of big city, huge news, international victims Bildete (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, what is the connection of this to the 2022 missile explosion in Poland? Here a crazy guy stabbed few folks, none fatally. To me this is not a notable event, not until its coverage is enduring (as in, it is referenced in future years, preferably by academic sources). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was significant because for first time West civilians been killed by Ukrainian missile, this is one of the first case of Ukrainian nationalist terrorize the West and had really huge international covered, also because a lot of West citizens were involved as victims Bildete (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Come back when this is a case study or books are being written about it. Secondary coverage beyond the news is the bare minimum. Not sure what some of the keep votes are trying to accomplish with rationales that have nothing to do with the sourcing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Off-TV Play

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

An attempted bold merge of the article was reverted, but rather than start a merge discussion I am starting an AfD instead due to my serious notability concerns. This article would seem to fail WP:GNG as there are no secondary sources that appear to talk specifically about Off-TV Play as a feature as opposed to the Wii U console as a whole or its controllers. Looking at the sources given upon the article's creation, they are all Wii U console reviews and not much seems to have changed. Notability is not inherited; that is a core tenet of notability, so a feature does not become notable solely because the device it is on is notable. Furthermore, with devices like the PlayStation Portal, the feature cannot be said to be unique any longer either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wii U GamePad: per nom. Sources do not appear to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. silviaASH (inquire within) 05:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Games, and Toys. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourced reception section shows notability, (sources like this are in-depth, and by third party reliable sources], and the subject would be an WP:UNDUE issue to fully cover the topic at the GanePad article. Sergecross73 msg me 11:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also baffled by the nominator's comment about the PlayStation Portal. It is, at best, completely irrelevant, and, at worst, completely against their own argument, as there is RS commentary about how off tv play did it better. There's articles saying that off tv play is the Wii U's legacy even. Very misguided. Sergecross73 msg me 23:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wii U GamePad This is just an feature of the Wii U GamePad- not notable enough for an independent article. TzarN64 (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this were just the list of games that supported Off-TV play, it would clearly be reasonable, and would not be appropriate to merge back to Wii U or other articles. That more can be added to discuss development and its reception such that it is more than just a list seems to make sense to have this as its own article separate from the console or controller. Masem (t) 17:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SOURCESEXIST, please cite where the development information and major reception is. So far there has only been one cited source solely about the Off-TV Play feature. Re: Articles about the gamepad, there is already a gamepad article of course. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read their comment, they did not make a SOURCESEXIST violating argument in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wii U Gamepad. This subject is almost entirely tied to its usage in the Gamepad, and is reflected in nearly all of the coverage. The bulk of arguments for keeping do not take into account Wikipedia:NOPAGE, which very strongly applies to this situation given the subject overlap, which would allow for a greater understanding of both subjects if they were to be discussed together. A separate article is not necessary in this case. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think an attempt at talk page discussion would have been beneficial before nominating. Still, I struggle with the title "Off-TV Play", which sounds confusing/ambiguous outside the Wii U context. I don't think it's a good article as is, I'm unsure what the opposition to a merge is here. IgelRM (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The feature does appear to have reputable coverage and reception, and merging the information of this article into the GamePad article would either require a disproportionately long section or, if trimmed, would create a WP:UNDUE issue. Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eluka Majaka

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

Notable director (his 75th film) and notable cast, so why are there no reliable reviews? A search in Telugu (or English for that matter) surprisingly yields nothing [28]. No reliable reviews or other reliable sources apart from the single sources already on the article. The old sources that used to be on the article and a WP:BEFORE yielded: [29] [30] [31] [32]. This is not a pre-2010 film, it is a 2016 film, hence it needs more sources.

Note several films by the same director lack articles including his immediate previous film (see the director's filmography). Note: I support a redirect to Relangi Narasimha Rao#Filmography, where the same source about this film is also there. DareshMohan (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable cast+crew+director; coverage about production including a bylined article in The Hindu. Seems to meet WP:GNG. ~~But meets WP:NFIC as it was noted as a shift in Rao's career, marking the peak of his involvement in Kannada-language productions,~~ https://ntvtelugu.com/movie-news/director-relangi-narasimha-rao-birthday-special-62551.html ~~[it is not his first not remade-in-Kannada non-Telugu film?]~~ ~~Would clutter up the director's bio.~~ 123Telugu should imv be accepted as a source to expand reception (although maybe not to base notability upon). Redirect indeed warranted. Very opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 11:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This isn't his first Telugu film not to be remade in Kannada or that wasn't a remake.

He has three other such films like that:

Apparao Ki Oka Nela Thappindi (2001)
Preminchukunnam Pelliki Randi (2004)
Appu Chesi Pappu Koodu (2008)
Oo Antava Maava Oo Ooo Antava Maavaa (2023) DareshMohan (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Will amend my comment (that was written in a very confusing way, on top of this). -Mushy Yank. 17:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Relangi Narasimha Rao#Filmography or Delete. Fails WP:NFILM with no significant coverage, in multiple reliable sources and no multiple critical reviews needed to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reiner Frieske

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

Non-notable German handball player. I was unable to find any in-depth sources about him. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: silver medallist from the 1970 World Men's Handball Championship, according to de:wiki. Geschichte (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Notable for the following reasons: (see German Wikipedia for a slightly more detailed entry)

East German Handball Champion: He was a goalkeeper for the team that won the "DDR-Meister: (East German Championship) in 1964.
International Handball Player: Frieske played for the East German national handball team.
World Championship Appearances: He represented East Germany in the World Handball Championships in 1964, 1967, and 1970, with the team finishing 2nd place in 1970.
Olympian: He competed as part of the East German handball team at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich. He played in 6 out of 6 games during the tournament. The team played in the bronze medal match, but was edged out by Romania (19-16), finishing in 4th place.

References that I found clicking Google News above were in German. — ERcheck (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per ERcheck and sources which I found [33] and [34]. Note: Some sources wrote Rainer instead of Reiner. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Handball and Olympics. Let'srun (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic and not really relevant to the English wiki. The German version of article looks pretty short too with only 3 sources. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – PDF file looks decent, but does the second newspaper even mention him? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in the bottom left corner with the title "Geachtet als Sportsmann und Kamerad". 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University of Islamic Studies

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

Procedural nomination per WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 11#University of Islamic Studies. There was no support for this page as a redirect. An opinion from the RfD was that it is likely there are sources which aren't in English so it needs a full evaluation as an article. Jay 💬 12:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Islam, and Pakistan. Jay 💬 12:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can be better sourced but decent. I will say that the article has been around since 2007. Ramos1990 (talk)
Delete, I could change my !vote if it is found that non-English sources bring this around to be deemed notable. Please ping me before closing if that is the case. Otherwise, in the English search I ran this only has itself to cite, and that is not sufficient for notability. Though the name of the University makes it sound more prominent than sources seem to indicate. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anglais

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

A classic case of a redirect with possibilities being needlessly disambiguated. Yes, this term is French for English, but WP:DAB explicitly states that a disambiguation page is not a foreign language dictionary. Sure, there are historical ties between English and French, but this could be said for any number of pairs of languages; it doesn't warrant foreign language disambiguation for all of them. Should be a redirect to the only thing known by this name in English, as it was originally. — Anonymous 19:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and England. — Anonymous 19:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Procedural close~~. This is not proposed as an article for deletion: the nominator's preferred disposal is to redirect it, and no policy reason to delete is offered. Just redirect it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shhhnotsoloud, already tried, was reverted because it was previously an RfD. Consensus has established that AfD is the correct venue for controversial BLARs. — Anonymous 14:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK. In which case, Redirect to Country dance. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A valid DAB, with at least four possibilities and maybe more: the dictionary definition, country dance, creme anglaise and Les Anglais in Haiti. (Note that anglaise redirects to country dance; it should redirect here.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dclemens1971, see WP:DABDICT and WP:PARTIAL. A dictionary definition is a textbook example of what to never put on a DAB page, while creme anglaise and Les Anglais are partial title matches whose subjects are not known as simply "anglais" alone. — Anonymous 14:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are enough of a conceptual match to overcome any concerns in this situation, and re: DABDICT, what I see here as a definition is fully compliant with the guidance on that page that a short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context. "Creme anglaise" is at least as appropriate a navigational result as "country dance" for this word. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Dclemens1971, I don't follow. I'll grant that you could make the argument that a brief definition of the word anglais could not possibly hurt if there were a need for a DAB page to begin with, but providing the definition is not a reason for the existence of said page. Your response also seems to ignore WP:PARTIAL; unless you can provide a source showing where someone refers to "creme anglaise" as simply "anglais(e)" without the extra word, then it will only ever be a partial title match (same with "Les Anglaise"). However, there are sources that refer to the dance as simply "anglais". — Anonymous 16:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is extremely normal in cooking to refer to creme anglaise as just "anglaise" or "the anglaise", as in "Time to make the anglaise." See Dale-Roberts, The Test Kitchen; Foskett, Campbell and Patkins, Practical Cookery: Level 3; the Culinary Institute of America text Baking and Pastry; etc. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nobody calls Crème anglaise "Anglais", and we Brits just call it custard. "Anglais" isn't a plausible search term for "Law French", and as for the English language and people, it has been rightly said above that Wikipedia isn't a dictionary of foreign terms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dclemens1971 unintentionally makes an argument against one of the supposed ambiguities. Checking, it turns out that those books never say "anglais" for crème anglaise and always say "anglaise".
However: subtract one, add one. "Anglaise" (also "Anglaise tardive") was an old name for the duke cherry, more formally known (after some jumping about the binomials over the years) as Prunus × gondouinii (redlinked at Prunus subg. Cerasus and List of Prunus species). Equally, I cannot find any good quality musical sources that use "anglais", in actual English, for country dance; only "Anglaise" or "Anglois", sometimes italicized, sometimes not. And no-one calls law French "Anglais" or "Anglaise", not least because that would be a complete misnomer. So:
- Anglaise is ambiguous between crème anglaise, the country dance, and Prunus × gondouinii
- This article title, anglais, is not actually used in English for anything listed on the disambiguation, and doesn't have its own plausible redirect target at all except to (ironically) anglaise.
The correct course of action seems to be to rename this to anglaise and make it a three-way disambiguation. It is typical of Wikipedia that we have it exactly backwards after 2 decades. Uncle G (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uncle G Anglaise is just the feminine of anglais; it would be silly to have two separate dab pages for what is the same word in French. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a good thing that I did not say to do that, then. Please read what I actually said that I think to be the correct course of action to take. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uncle G I wasn't saying you said that, I was just pointing out that they are the same word so one dab page will suffice. Often harder to get to a consensus for "move" than for "keep" since a move is an editorial decision, but if it's anglaise instead of anglais, no skin off my nose either way. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Maybe I misunderstood something concerning "editorial decision"? I do see that "harder to get" was used. The lead at Articles for deletion states, Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changed from "Delete") Seems like trivia. But may be better to keep since it is geared to disambiguate. Ramos1990 (talk)
Redirect, I am not sure if the "Delete" !votes are fully reading this discussion? Well, the correct !vote here should be to redirect per " Should be a redirect to the only thing known by this name in English, as it was originally." Agree with editor Shhnotsoloud assessment. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but with just the dance entry, Les Anglais (Haitian commune), Les Anglais (a book by Philippe Daudy), and Charlotte Anglais (List of One Piece characters). Wikipedia is not a French-English dictionary, so English language and English people are out. The introductory sentence translation and the Wiktionary link are quite sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Designbox

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

Non-notable software; can't find any SIGCOV besides a few trivial mentions ([35], [36]). Deproded in 2010 without explanation. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Development

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

This article does not meet GNG, and SNG WP:ORGCRITE. It mainly relies on primary sources and there is no indication of importance. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Kardong

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

This article is just talking more about who the subject collabed with in music rather that about himself. And looking for sources on him, I didn't find any sources on him. GamerPro64 05:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Washington. GamerPro64 05:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israr Khan

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

I don’t believe that this page meets the notability criteria for Wikipedia, as the notability is President of the Oxford Union only, and that the majority of such persons do not have an article. This indicates a consensus that being President of the Oxford Union is not itself notable enough to merit a Wikipedia page. Daniel.villar7 (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. The individual is not relevant for an encyclopedia, as his only achievement so far is the Oxford Union presidency. A soft delete is more than obvious. DarkLordOfTheHacks (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a good reading of consensus—topics without coverage on WIkipedia are not presumed non-notable by de facto consensus. He also has more significant achievements than his presidency of the Oxford Union—he was appointed ambassador-at-large for Youth Empowerment by Pakistan's Prime Minister. I think this person meets the notability criteria for the significant positions he's held. Keep. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just so nobody rushes to close this: there is an open sockpuppet investigation into the nominator and other voter. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to agree with Zanahary, I think that the appointment as Ambassador at large for example clearly meets the notability criteria. Aspirant006 (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that this page meets the notability criteria, the person in question is not only notable for the presidency of the Oxford Union, but as also pointed out, for their appointment as ambassador-at-large for Youth Empowerment by Pakistan's Prime Minister. Furthermore, as Oxford Union President, they were the first ever from Balochistan, which I believe adds to the notability. Keep Aspirant006 (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has no sources that indicate notoriety through WP:SIGCOV. This ambassadorship-at-large from Pakistan is an honorary appointment and fails to meet the criteria for notability in addition to his Oxford Union presidency. DarkLordOfTheHacks (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DLOTH, how did you find this deletion discussion within one minute of its posting? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Lorei

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

Subject does not appear to have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSBASIC. Let'srun (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jani Galik

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Florida. Let'srun (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of New England Revolution players – As suggested in similar AfD. Svartner (talk) 09:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with this. Giant Snowman 11:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Corona

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

This subject, who only played in a single MLS match, does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The article currently has zero secondary sources and a BEFORE only came up with some namedrops and passing mentions. The best I could find was a couple of sentences at [[37]]. A redirect to All-time Chivas USA roster may be a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and California. Let'srun (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All-time Chivas USA roster as possible search term. Giant Snowman 08:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dorrance Publishing Company

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

I see no SIRS sources, maybe except [38], but that may fall under TRADES. Janhrach (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Business, and Pennsylvania. Janhrach (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are 25,000+ hits for this on newspapers.com. I would guess at least some of those are sigcov. Generally it is extremely difficult to find sigcov for prolific book publishers, not because it doesn't exist, but because it's drowned out by decades worth of citations to the books they published. Not voting but I would advise people be careful before they vote. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yeah, they've been around for 100 yrs and you get a zillion hits in Gnews and Gscholar, but I can't find much about the company. I found a newspaper ad from 1939 and stuff published in 2022 from them. This is a hard one. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that hard. Strange but untrue (talk · contribs) did some of the hard work back in 2015 finding that magazine source by Mick Rooney. And it's easy to filter out publication credits just by looking for things about the founder. That said, other than the Rooney 2014 source all that I've found is sources that lump this in with Vantage Press. Uncle G (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what I find online is around the book Why is Your Country at War by Lindburgh, gov't had the printing plates destroyed during WW1, "Why is your country at war gordon dorrance" brings up still lots of coverage, but the NY Times and others had articles about it, I'll see if I can free up some time later to go through them. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Some info found in obituaries for Gordon Dorrance that founded the company. This appears to be independent [39]. You can also look up about a class action lawsuit against the company recently. We probably have enough for a Basic stub article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the "independent publishing" review by itself helps to bring this to the level of notability by secondary sources where I would !vote for a keep to weak keep. Dorrance doesn't seem to be going anywhere, and there level of verifiable notability is sufficient, though not deep nor wide. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Pantheist Society

AfDs for this article:

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

I thought that this could be cleaned up, and I thought that I had found an actual source on the subject, an encyclopaedia article on this very thing — only for my hopes to be dashed when I checked the article author Harold Wood Jr in the author listing of ISBN 9781441122780 and found that xe is the founder of this organization.

The one real claim to sourcing in the prior AFD discussion was that Special:Permalink/153980923#External links means that the article "is referenced". It was not. It is not. The article itself pointed and points solely to the organization's own WWW site and what used to be the personal WWW site of one of its directors. On the organization's own WWW site is an outright copy of the same encyclopaedia article by Wood Jr. This is the only documentation of this organization to be found anywhere, and it all comes back to autobiography. There is no independent sourcing at all.

The nominator and several of the participants in the prior AFD discussion were quite right, but were outvoted by "assuming there's a real source", comments on the nominator, and bizarre comments that seem to be saying that we should keep the pantheism article.

Uncle G (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Religion. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a lot of mentions of this, but it's hard to sort out them from any sigcov that may exist. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You also have to see whether it's written by Harold Wood Jr, which all of the ones that I turned up turned out to be. One turns up a 1999 Encyclopaedia of Associations entry, for example, and it turns out that it points to the organization's old AOL site by Harold W. Wood Jr. Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I found [40], which is by J. Gordon Melton, which is fine. There's also this [41] which has a few pages of something. If I keep looking I could probably find enough to cobble together an article but there may be a merge / redirect target that is superior. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you actually, though? That Melton article spends most of its time explaining pantheism and doesn't get to the subject of the society until the penultimate paragraph, most of which is in quotation marks, with an annotation at the foot of the page that www.pantheist.net is the source; the Society's more recent WWW site. Uncle G (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If citing primary sources for what a group believes for our secondary/tertiary sources made them unreliable then would we have any sources for any religion? We can't cite them directly but of course someone who is analyzing their beliefs is going to cite their primary source materials (an analysis of Christian beliefs as expressed in the Bible would not be of much worth if it came from someone who had not read the Bible). I would question it more if they did not. And as to the length yeah it could be longer but it's not worthless. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If I fail to find more sources/a better target, I would support a merge to Pantheism, since Melton explicitly connects the group to wider ideas about Pantheism PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Merge to pantheism given admin comment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It's ironic, given the nominator, but we need more participation here from editors who are willing to cast "votes" otherwise it's up the closer's interpretation which is often labeled a "supervote" which the community has criticized in the past.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Want to keep, but have to vote move to draft due to the state of the thing. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has been around for 2 decades, so draftification isn't really on the table here. Any other takers for the merge to Pantheism?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t understand - why is drafting off the table? Hyperbolick (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I20 (film)

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

No reliable reviews, all sources are relating to promotional events and OTT release. Sources found in WP:BEFORE: [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]. Only review found was this, which has a dubious reliability [49]. DareshMohan (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Telugu films of 2024 (released + one review, more for verification than notability) [technically a merge] -Mushy Yank. 22:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And @DareshMohan, thanks a lot for linking the findings of your BEFORE. That's very helpful. -Mushy Yank. 22:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFILM with no significant coverage and no multiple reviews from reliable sources. DareshMohan yes, maabhoomitimes.com is unreliable. RangersRus (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable Bollywood film. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 St. Thomas Tommies baseball team

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

Subject does not appear to have the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG/WP:NSEASONS. PROD was removed with the comment that this was the first year the team played at the Division I level, but that does not correspond to any notability guideline on wikipedia. Let'srun (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Minnesota. Let'srun (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commen The ESPN source in the article says they were "the first school to make the two-level jump [from DIII to DI] since the current rules were put in place in 2010" so it might not be a completely routine season. I haven't searched for any other sources though, just leaving this here for the record. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St. Thomas (Minnesota) Tommies baseball. Fails GNG due to a lack of SIGCOV. The only notable aspect is the move from Division III to Division I, which is already explained in the proposed target. Frank Anchor 12:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St. Thomas (Minnesota) Tommies baseball Can't find any non-primary, non-trivial coverage on either google of Newspapers.com, even with the fact that this was their first season in D3, I still believe this doesn't meet the guidelines of WP:NSEASONS based on lack of coverage. Jordano^5³ 16:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret T. May

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

Tagged as questionable in notability and sourcing since 2017. I have seen nothing that suggests that this subject meets WP:NPROF. BD2412 T 03:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. BD2412 T 03:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Medicine, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Youth and Sports (Syria)

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

This article was created the same day this ministry was announced. Clearly WP:TOOSOON. — Anonymous 02:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Sports, and Syria. — Anonymous 02:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that the article was created the same day the formation of the ministry was announced isn't very relevant in my opinion as a ministry doesn't need time to become notable, and the existence of the article is good so that new relevant info could be added as soon as they're available. The article currently contains basic info that are similar to what other ministries' article have. (The info were added after this discussion was started). RamiPat (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. TOOSOON refers to topics that may or may not become notable; it's too early to tell. In this case, however, I have never heard about a government ministry that is not notable. At the very worst, the information could be merged to the cabinet that introduced the ministry, but I don't favor a merger here. Geschichte (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed with the editors which argue, correctly, that WP:TOOSOON is incorrectly being argued here by the nom. The article is notable upon review and will continue to be so.Iljhgtn (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Emergency and Disaster Management (Syria)

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

This article was created the same day this ministry was announced. Clearly WP:TOOSOON. — Anonymous 02:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Syria. — Anonymous 02:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that the article was created the same day the formation of the ministry was announced isn't very relevant in my opinion as a ministry doesn't need time to become notable, and the existence of the article is good so that new relevant info could be added as soon as they're available. The article currently contains basic info that are similar to what other ministries' article have. (The info were added after this discussion was started). RamiPat (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. TOOSOON refers to topics that may or may not become notable; it's too early to tell. In this case, however, I have never heard about a government ministry that is not notable. At the very worst, the information could be merged to the cabinet that introduced the ministry, but I don't favor a merger here. Geschichte (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:TOOSOON doesn't really apply if sources are given to support notability, it's meant for things that don't actually have coverage because it is too soon. Passes WP:GNG regardless. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 14:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Shaman (Hansen)

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

Could find no other coverage of this beyond the capitol grounds website. Even searching the artist's name and shaman just brings up various other shaman-related sculptures. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has been in the state capitol collection since 1971, as recorded here. Although I don't know how this represents a Shaman. A state capitol collection is notable for that fact alone - the artwork, owned by the entire state, was selected for the purpose of presenting credible sculptors and their work to the state as a whole. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's a niche SNG I'm unaware of, "being in a state capitol collection" does not confer notability. Secondary sources are always needed to establish notability. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (Changing from ~~Merge~~ based on coverage found on newspapers.com.) The sculpture itself is not notable, but the sculptor who made it is. There is a very brief stub on the sculptor James Lee Hansen that could use improvement. Merging the content about this sculpture into that stub would be a win-win alternative to deletion. The sculpture itself fails WP:GNG and is solely sourced to the non-independent commissioning organization. Netherzone (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage here, here, here, here, here and here. Enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Somebodyidkfkdt None of those links work. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, they should be fixed now. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh nice, good catch; withdraw. My apologies! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and nominator's withdrawal. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arc of Statehood

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

I could not find any non-routine coverage of this beyond the site for the capitol grounds themselves. Likely better incorporated into a list of public art installations in the city. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also searched for independent significant coverage but was unsuccessful. It does not make sense to merge/redirect it to a list of public art installations because it is not art, it is a series of informational plaques or "markers" with text about each county. That is not the same as public art or public sculpture. Even Washington State doesn't describe it as art, and the Fact Sheet lists the "artist" as "Unknown", so for all we know it could have simply been designed by the sign shop or foundry who cast the plaques. The sourcing consists of one sentence in an Arcadia Press book, (there have been many discussions about the reliability of Arcadia books which are mainly written for tourists); the listing in the Washington State database; and a draft of a proposal for Heritage Park itself, which is a work-for-hire pre-design study between the capitol and two consulting groups. Maybe it could be merged into the Washington State Capitol article in the subsection Art and monuments where it is already mentioned? Netherzone (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Kar

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

Declined prod. 4 of the 5 sources are databases. This source is a small 1 line mention and not SIGCOV for meeting WP:SPORTSCRIT. Those arguing for keep should not invoke NEXIST but actually provide sources. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Liberia. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per info I found and added to the article, this athlete wasn't "just" a participant but actually set a national U20 record, plus the stamp issue from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Saidu applies equally here. I think invoking WP:NEXIST is justified here because the WP:Verifiable info we do have is indicative of further coverage existing in Liberian media, which hasn't been checked yet because those sources are not online.

@User:LibStar, you are free to disagree on the merits acting in good faith, but you can't pre-empt invoking a guideline with well-established community consensus. What do you think about the NEXIST rationale provided here? --Habst (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only non database aource here is a 1 line mention. Notability is clearly not met here. LibStar (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that perspective from the sources currently in the article, but what about coverage in physical Liberian archives that nobody here has been able to check yet? --Habst (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing but databases comes out when you look for information online, if someone knows about a non-online source, please ping me FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sea to Sky (sculpture)

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

Another Olympia public art installation. This one has two sources, but one of the sources has a single sentence about the piece. Should be included on a list of public art installations in the city (and a page for the artist, who appears notable) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boiler Works

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

Olympia public arts installation with one source. Again, should be simply included on a list of public art installations in the city. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mysteries of Life

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

A non-notable statue by an artist that seems notable yet has no page - a pretty sad occurrence. Apologies for spamming this with all of these Olympia public art installations - most (but not all) appear to be non-notable. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has a good source showing its existence on the lawn of the state capitol. What, did you just go down the navbox and nominate everything for deletion? If the state of Washington believed that the statue (what there is of it, who decided to place these things there?) was notable enough to place on its lawn then notability, per visual arts criteria of proof of existence in a museum collection, has been achieved. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through the navbox, since there were a number of similar one or two sentence articles, but I didn't nominate everything as some of the pieces seem to hit independent notability. Per WP:OR, pages need multiple secondary sources, and I just can't find anything except the Washington Capitol (which are a single source and a primary source at that) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fabric.js

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

Only primary sources used in the article. A WP:BEFORE search failed to yield any suitable sources. Madeleine (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about this? I also found mention of it in a number of books on HTML5 with Google Books and Internet Archive. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've found multiple passing mentions of it but I haven't found any that demonstrate significant coverage. I'm unable to look at the source you linked due to a paywall, sadly. Madeleine (talk) 03:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are some papers on GScholar with more coverage than passing mentions, but I don't consider any of them to be usable. I'm able to view this source and it only contains superficial discussion of Fabric.js: two sentences comparing basic features and a short table comparing syntax. There's also this journal article, which I don't consider to be a reliable source based on the low quality of the paper (what reputable journal would publish an extremely simple app prototype as novel research?) Other journal articles I found have similar reliability problems.

Untitled (Lee Kelly, 1973)

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

I'll admit this one is pretty difficult to search for, but I don't think it's notable; the site for the capitol grounds appear to be the only real coverage of this piece of public art. Belongs on a list of the artist's works and a list of public art installations in the city. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the work is cited as being among the Washington Capitol collection, a prominent sculpture collection in the Northwest U.S. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woman Dancing

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

Only one source and it's primary - from the state government itself, which put it up. The artist is probably notable and it could probably be featured there, but I can't dig anything up about this particular statue. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the capitol mention and that a state capitol's statue collection is by definition notable. As long as the existence and placement of the statue is obtained then the visual art criteria has been met. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (not an !vote at this time) - WP really should have an article on the sculptor, Phillip Levine, who was a somewhat well-known figurative sculptor. I'm fairly certain he would meet NARTIST criteria for notability. If there were such an article to redirect this to, that would make the most sense to me. A quick BEFORE didn't find any independent sources on this specific sculpture. Netherzone (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage here, here, here, here, here and here. Enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Somebodyidkfkdt and GNG ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on the excellent research by Sombodyidkfkdt. Those sources would be a helpful addition to add to the article for readers of the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oop, good catch and good expansion; apologies for missing that one. - Withdrawn by nominator. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 National Cricket League Twenty20

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV for a separate season article. Vestrian24Bio 05:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for same reasons. Vestrian24Bio 05:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Bangladesh. Vestrian24Bio 05:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* – This article is notable due to coverage by reliable sources like ESPNcricinfo and other relevant media outlets. The sources have been added to support the article's notability.

--Sakib H Hridoy (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are a lot of offline and Bengali language sources ([50]) regarding NCL T20. I consider it to pass WP:NEVENT/WP:SIGCOV. This is a top-tier domestic league of a full member nation, seasonal articles are obviously needed for a proper arrangement of information and convenience for the readers. Apart from that, my concern is about the nominator, who had run a deletion campaign of several articles of cricket tournaments with exactly the same rationale Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG without a detailed explanation. Robo^Cric Let's chat 10:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORTSEVENT would be the appropriate guideline here, and these are WP:ROUTINE sources as in the WP:NEVENT guidelines as well. Vestrian24Bio 13:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Robocric. It was a major cricket event in Bangladesh. Veldsenk (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I view the available sources as making a sufficient case for notability. It could make sense, down the road, to merge this content elsewhere, but there is no deadline.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep, when taking the Bengali sources into account notability can be sufficient. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Daher Gadid

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

Declined prod with reason "Long international athletics career". That in itself does not meet WP:NATH or WP:SPORTSCRIT. The 2 sources added are essentially databases and not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in Gbooks or newspapers, Gnews is also empty. A regular Gsearch only brings up rankings in various events. Does not pass notability for athletes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The intention of NSPORTS2022 was to weed out athletes who are only known for participating in a single Olympics, but that doesn't apply in this instance because the subject went far beyond merely participating, finishing as the top distance runner from his country for multiple global championships over 20-year timespan. In particular he finished runner-up at the Lille Half Marathon (see ARRS, WLH) in a performance that would have merited significant coverage in his country.

I tried to search Djiboutian newspapers like La Nation, but its website is timing out for me and I'm not sure if their archives go back to the 1990s. Keep in mind there was a well-known digitization gap in the 1990s when the subject was most active, before most newspapers began publishing online but after most physical archives end. Another avenue would be French newspapers in the 1990s, given that's where much of his racing history was. Given the amount of results info we have (way more than most Olympians nominated lately), I think the WP:NEXIST case is strong here. --Habst (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

particular he finished runner-up at the Lille Half Marathon in a performance that would have merited significant coverage in his country. Where is the evidence of this? It's just a made up claim. LibStar (talk) 09:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar It's not made up at all, it's sourced to WP:V information from Association of Road Racing Statisticians. There's lots of coverage of the Lille Half Marathon online from several countries, see google:Semi-Marathon de Lille Métropole and google:Lille Half Marathon for examples. This is of course not to mention that the subject qualified for two Olympics and competed at nearly a dozen international championships. --Habst (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a French website reprinting an article from La Nation, which describes (I think) some sort of marathon training course that was taught by "a group of runners led by the great Omar Daher". The nation's press referring to him as "the great" indicates significance – still searching though. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:NATH nor WP:ANYBIO/WP:GNG. The mention in La Nation is not WP:SIGCOV. There is nothing here to write the article from (which is presumably why it has only mustered a handful of edits in the last 10 years). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy Re: La Nation, considering its entire http://www.lanation.dj/ website is completely inaccessible right now, shouldn't that factor into our decision? Per WP:NEXIST, even if the website is down, if further coverage exists there that can be enough to keep an article. --Habst (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware you can search it through Google's index and cache? See [51]. Note that "Omar Daher Gadid" returns nothing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because their archives don't extend to when Gadid was active. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The archive will have indexed all searchable content on the La Nation website, and so it obviates the objection that the site is down. If you are saying there may be offline content somewhere, then sure. But it won't be found on the La Nation website. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy, a technical note, Googlebot does not index even close to all of La Nation or any other newspaper's archives (except maybe a few select big names like NYT where Google's web crawler has been specifically trained where to look). There have been several times where I find an article through a newspaper's search box, then google that article title in quotes and get no results. So I really wouldn't trust Google's cache at all when it comes to these issues. --Habst (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Googlebot respects robots.txt and a site crawl budget. It also prioritises pages based on content, but unless La Nation specifically restricted the bot, or else did not itself provide links to its own content, it is likely that all pages with significant news content would, in fact, be indexed, which is why some sites still use Google for their own site search using Googles CSE. I see no evidence that La Nation would not allow their pages to be indexed. And, to be clear, the evidence of searches, as described, suggests La Nation has nothing significant on him. And this whole argument that there may be something there that we cannot discover is unhelpful. There is no evidence that sources exist and citing NEXIST appears to be done despite it saying, very clearly, However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. This page has been here for 9 years without sourcing. Finally, the reason we have SNGs is to create a refutable presumption of notability. That is, if he were to meet NATH, we could argue, as you are doing, that it is likely that sources exist. But he does not meet NATH. That's what the SNG is for. There is no reason to keep this article, which cannot be written encyclopaedically. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One can certainly write an encyclopedic article on Gadid, one of the greatest Djiboutian athletes ever. That La Nation's modern records – which do not include anything from when he was active – do not have accessible coverage of him, does not, actually, indicate that there is no coverage of him that exists. As I demonstrated above, there was a report on him reprinted on another website that referred to him as "the great" – if La Nation's archives were complete, we would have found that article on their website, rather than it only reprinted somewhere else. merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive – correct, seldom, not always incorrect. There are instances where someone can be highly notable and have coverage not accessible to us, as I expect is the case here. However, I'm hoping to do a more in-depth search within a few days, hence the relist I requested below. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot write an encyclopaedic article without secondary sources. If you start writing a synthesis of primary sources, you are not writing an encyclopaedic article, you are doing a history project. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One can write a decent article with a combination of a few primary sources and mentions in secondary sources such as La Nation, and one can use common sense to conclude that one of the greatest Djiboutian athletes in history is likely to have offline coverage that would allow an extensive, good article to be written. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. If you create a history article of someone's life based on primary sources, then what you have is a secondary source, a history. You have synthesised the sources into an article. That is a perfectly valid thing to do, but it is not an encyclopaedic article. Wkipedia is a tertiary source, by design and by policy. This is the wrong project for such articles. You should be writing a wikibook about the lives of such athletes, perhaps. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy, yea, I still have technical disagreements with what you're writing regardless of what the robots.txt says. For example, many news sites might have a permissive robots.txt but only make their archives accessible via on-site search or in an "archive" paginated system that requires Googlebot to go hundreds or thousands of pages back to find articles, and Googlebot's site crawl budget won't allow it to go to the last page. Some sites do use Google's CSE, but many don't, and I think this problem of unindexed "clear web" pages is more widespread than you are making it out to be. And that's not even accounting for the fact that many news sites require paid subscriptions to view their archives. --Habst (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is simply no evidence that any secondary sources exist. This is AfD. Find the sources and we can discuss. Save the meta discussion for a policy page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I showed evidence above that he's been referred to in La Nation as "the great" (I need to find it again, but I thought I saw another paper saying something like '[so-and-so's] win in this event was the greatest Djiboutian triumph since Omar Gadid'), and based on our inability to find that coverage on the La Nation site itself, that means that the coverage that does exist in Djiboutian news would not be accessible to us, but it still is extremely likely to exist. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The epithet "the great" does not notability make. We need WP:SIGCOV coverage in independent secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy, notability is derived from what reliable secondary sources say about a subject, so if a secondary source is calling him "the great", that actually means a lot. I agree that the substance is more important than the technical question of Google web crawler accessibility, but the two concepts are related if there is unindexed clear-web content about Gadid in addition to physical archives in this case. The NEXIST argument has been persuasive in other AfDs even without sources presented – I think it seldom is, but this is an exceptional case. --Habst (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject simply fails WP:SPORTSCRIT, or more specifically WP:NTRACK. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If possible, could I request a relist? I'm hoping to give this a better look in the next few days or so. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Providing additional time for examination as requested. BD2412 T 02:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 02:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NTRACK really makes it clear that unless something were to change from when I write this and review, the subject is not notable for a article all unto itself. If that changes, you can always write another article or move to draft space. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not appear to meet the WP:SPORTSBASIC due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Currently there are zero secondary sources in the article, and a WP:BEFORE didn't reveal anything that could be used to improve what is already here. BLP's require much stronger secondary sourcing than what is present here. Let'srun (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as previous contested PRODs. Nothing but databases to establish notability and the text is WP:SYNTH FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Super 8 Twenty20 Cup

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Pakistan. Vestrian24Bio 05:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Super 8 T20 Cup was much more selective than the National T20 Cup, had T20 status, and was the precursor of the Pakistan Super League. Pakistani publications regularly covered it while the event was ongoing ([52], [53], [54], [55]), and I'm sure there must be some offline coverage of it in almanacs. Since Wikipedia also functions as an almanac (WP:5P1), we must cover T20 matches as part of our almanac coverage.

The tournament was definitely notable, but I'm not sure about the individual seasons that were not nominated. In any case, the matches held in those seasons shoulde be part of our almanac coverage. You could request a merge and renaming of those seasons so that they resemble maybe in the form of 2011 season in Pakistani cricket, and so on, and add those matches there, but it is not for WP:AFD to decide. Please initiate a WP:RFC on WP:CRIC, so that all members are on the same page and we do not have selective purges due to the lack of WP:AFD participation. Veldsenk (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We already act like an almanac for international cricket matches (International cricket in 2010–11) but articles for domestic cricket are still missing. Veldsenk (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the point about the almanac is a good one from Veldsenk. This article also is notable when factoring Pakistani sources in addition. Which is permissible. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Sri Lanka Cricket Super 4's T20

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Vestrian24Bio 05:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:5P1. Request a rename and merge to 2014 in Sri Lankan cricket after a proper consensus or do a WP:RFC in general. It is WP:TE to bring T20 status tournaments to WP:AFD from countries which are underrepresented on Wikipedia and should not continue. Veldsenk (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while I do not agree that this AfD or similar rise to the level of full on tendentious editing as suggested by the other comment, I do think that the notability for this is shown to be adequate for the subject matter to retain the article after a search. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 Prime Minister Cup (Women)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Nepal. Vestrian24Bio 05:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : [56][57][58][59][60][61] these are links of the coverage of the tournament from the prominent newpaper for this season which should be enough to pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.Godknowme1 (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Some~~ All of these are WP:ROUTINE. Vestrian24Bio 02:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1 & 3 are the same link. Vestrian24Bio 04:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Godknowme1. Enough coverage exists. Veldsenk (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of those are WP:ROUTINE coverage only. Vestrian24Bio 04:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a deeper look at whether these sources are routine, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, routine coverage, when expanded out into a higher density and frequency on a single subject, no longer becomes "routine". This is why things like the American Super Bowl are perfectly notable. No need to discriminate here if there are differences of the types of outlets that bring this to notability based on language or regional differences alone. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 KP Oli Cup (cricket)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Nepal. Vestrian24Bio 05:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - nominator is launching several AfDs within a short timeframe, with copy-paste deletion rationale without virtually any detail. AfD nominations are launched with just minutes apart, pointing to that nominator has not performed WP:BEFORE in a reasonable manner. --Soman (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman: I may have initiated the nominations within minutes, but I spent an entire day performing web searches etc. to verify its notability. Vestrian24Bio 02:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet somehow you missed the press reporting on for this event. See Kantipur, Gorkhapatra, Online Khabar, Annapurna Post, Ratopati, Naya Patrika. --Soman (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE coverage. Vestrian24Bio 13:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soman is right. This should be a keep. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [62][63][64][65] these are some reports for this tournament.Godknowme1 (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:ROUTINE coverage. Vestrian24Bio 13:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:5P1, it is part of our almanac coverage. I'd prefer to rename it as 2023 in Nepali cricket and merge all domestic matches there but that's out of scope of this WP:AFD. Veldsenk (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the coverage routine or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, again, as Veldensk has put in some good work here on these and helped to my job reviewing additionally for notability easier, I can conclude again, that this meets notability and is not merely covered in a purely or trivially "routine" manner. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toyi Simklina

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

Declined prod. 4 of the 5 sources are just databases. This source is just a 1 line mention. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NATH. LibStar (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on WP:NEXIST. I was able to significantly expand the article with WP:V information, and what makes this sportsperson article unique is that we do have data showing this person had a career spanning at least nine years, unusually long for someone without SIGCOV. The newspaper archives in Togo would have covered this athlete in greater detail. --Habst (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having a career for at least 9 years does not guarantee notability. What guarantees notability is existence of actual third party in-depth sources which is lacking here. Recycling the NEXIST argument doesn't work. LibStar (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar, what do you think about the merits of the NEXIST argument in this case specifically? I think it's guaranteed that this athlete would have been covered in Togolese media, but those archives aren't online which makes invoking NEXIST necessary. --Habst (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As many closing admins in these athlete AfDs have disregarded NEXIST. I support that position. LibStar (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because some of these AFDs have been closed as delete doesn't mean that its always invalid; other admins have agreed it is valid, e.g. you're right that N:EXIST is the basis for an argument to keep. It wouldn't be part of Wikipedia policy if it was never usable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Togo at the 1988 Summer Olympics: Like the nom, I could not find any WP:SIGCOV for the subject to meet the notability guidelines. WP:SPORTSBASIC requires at least one piece of significant coverage in the article, and currently there is zero. We also can't assume who the local media would and would not have covered when determining whether to keep any WP:BLP. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, the keep arguments don't hold water whatsoever. Please stop talking about someone browsing through national archives in dozens of countries, something that is obviouly not going to happen. Furthermore this was not an accomplished athlete considering his lifetime best. Geschichte (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop talking about someone browsing through national archives in dozens of countries, something that is obviouly not going to happen. – Even if its unlikely to happen, it still should be done. Honestly, Wikipedia's notability guidelines are completely broken when we're getting rid of all-time greats in under-developed nations simply because no one feels like checking relevant archives. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Like the article creator? WP:BLP's require strong secondary sourcing, which this article currently doesn't have. A redirect also preserves the page history in the event WP:SIGCOV can be found. Let'srun (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Agreed with Let'srun. Also if you think Wikipedia is broken, you can always start your own online encyclopaedia of "all time great" athletes. LibStar (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Togo at the 1988 Summer Olympics: could not find sources beyond databases although I was confused reading the sentences constructed from these databases. I appreciate the argument to maintain knowledge but that is neither here or there. It should be the other way around. Find sources then write the article, not the other way around or act as Wikipedia is the place for original work. FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Behounek

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

Does not pass GNG. The player appears only in databases. No sport achievements, he played only in lower German tiers. FromCzech (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. FromCzech (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The player appears only in databases. This article from Hamburger Abendblatt is WP:SIGCOV. he played only in lower German tiers. After signing a professional contract with Hamburger SV,[66] he made 28 appearances in the fully professional 3. Liga and over 130 appearances in the semi-professional fourth-tier Regionalliga Nord. The Abendblatt article is not sufficient for me. Perhaps someone can dig up more? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The first source is decent, but in my opinion, even only one significant coverage provided on articles is still too weak to establish notability. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per de:Jonas Behounek Govvy (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had seen the article in German and it really seems to have enough sources. Svartner (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, most of the sources are from his (former) clubs. Would you consider one of the sources SIGCOV? Robby.is.on (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Robby.is.on: WP:BASIC has always said then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, so with what's online, whats on the German article. (although a little heavy on primary sources) I feel it's okay for the basic criteria. I also see room for improvement for both articles. Govvy (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The club references aren't independent though, which was my main point. Which of the sources in the German article do you consider usable for our article, even if not necessarily SIGCOV? Robby.is.on (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I remind what GNG says, that SIGCOV is not a guarantee that a subject merits its own page. His greatest sporting achievements are single season in the 3rd highest German league (during which he contributed to his team's relegation to the 4th league) and an unsuccessful trial at a second league club (as dewiki says). Common sense does not see this as something that should have an entry in an encyclopedia. FromCzech (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:50, 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) 02:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A.J. Styles and Christopher Daniels

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

TNA team lasting just six months with very short title reigns. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Seems to rely on limited sources. May be better transfer some of this to AJ Styles main page and delete the article. Ramos1990 (talk)

It's not a redirect !vote if you're saying to delete the article. I'm not sure whether you want a redirect, merge, or delete? Your !vote seems to advocate for all three. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive redirecting means the article ceases to exist, and is thus redirected to another article. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They were Pro Wrestling Illustrated tag team of the year in 2006. No deletion rationale has been provided for this, or any of the nominator's other AfDs. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Short title reigns and tag team of the year is not good enough. For example, Kane and X-Pac, Kofi Kingston and R-Truth does not and should not have articles even though they were champions and won the award. Most of the content in this article seems excessive. The most significant part is their matches with America's Most Wanted and LAX, but that is summarized well in both men's articles. See AJ Styles#X Division Champion (2004–2007) and Christopher Daniels#X Division Champion (2005–2007). BinaryBrainBug (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you're advocating for a redirect, please tell us where to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Man Power Trip

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

WWF team lasting less than two months. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lasted that length due to injury to Triple H but in that two months, was a very significant part of their programming in early-mid 2001. No. It does not get deleted. Russ Jericho (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Russ Jericho: Could you explain the significance of the team with reliable sources (check WP:PW/RS)? BinaryBrainBug (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://prowrestling.fandom.com/wiki/The_Power_Trip 67.198.117.6 (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Only has one source and was made by an IP in 2005. After all this time, it should have improved if it was notable. May be better as a section in Stone Cold or Triple Hs page. More of a fan page than encyclopedia entry. Ramos1990 (talk)
Weak keep There's a source in the article. Probably more out there. Unlikely the nominator did the requied WP:BEFORE search based on the speed of their other nominations. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a comment on the possible sources, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, agreed with the merge suggestion after this amount of time. Also, a single source, though not unreliable from what I can tell (though a bit on the tabloidy side) does not bode well here. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Kahoe

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

Article on an individual that ~~appears to have~~ might have played a single season of professional lacrosse, though it isn't clear he actually ever played. Sourcing is all either non-independent profiles or statistical outlines, with one local news outlet on his transfer from Syracuse to Georgetown. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. nf utvol (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Sports. nf utvol (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This in-depth story in The Philadelphia Inquirer along with this and this from Syracuse.com is probably sufficient for GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, I think those sources are fairly Run-of-the-Mill coverage. Local newspapers also cover high school and college athletes, in every city and town, there are several high schools and colleges and papers that cover them; inevitably, these athletes will receive coverage.

The Inquirer and the Syracuse.com are both major news outlets, but they also serve as local news, which does make this a little less cut and dry than it otherwise would be. All of these sources, though, are simply profiles of a local high school (in the case of the Inquirer), or collegiate (in the case of the Syracuse.com sources) athlete, without much of a context outside of local interest. A quick perusal of both shows that these sorts of profiles happen daily, sometimes multiple times daily. Using these three sources to establish notability would mean that there are quite literally thousands of similar cases where non-notable high school or collegiate athletes would now meet the notability threshold for an article, just based on coverage in the Inquirer and Syracuse.com.

Finally, to quote the WP:ATHLETE guideline: The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level. In this case, the subject appears to have only played a single season of professional lacrosse, with almost no coverage of this beyond a stats page. The coverage on his participation in a collegiate championship is limited to a single page commenting on his social media posts. nf utvol (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ROTM is an essay; whether there's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is all that matters here. And in this case, he does meet that, with in-depth stories in The Inquirer and Syracuse.com. The significant coverage on the subject does not need to be regarding something that you subjectively deem of greater than "local interest" in order to count as significant coverage. You say that this would allow for "quite literally thousands of similar cases where non-notable high school or collegiate athletes would now meet the notability threshold for an article" – however, the difference here is that the subject also competed professionally at, what I believe is, the highest-level of lacrosse (i.e. he's not just some random local college player like you're making him out to be). Lastly, the ATHLETE "guidelines" are just a garbled mess that few still rely on. Note that NSPORT includes nothing talking about lacrosse, thus even the greatest lacrosse player of all time would still fail it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After doing a little more digging it isn't clear that Kahoe ever actually played a regular season game of professional lacrosse. According to the stats page linked in the article, he was drafted by the Boston Blazers in 2009 but never played a game. Then, according to Lacrosse All Stars (which I'm not sure is a RS anyway), he was drafted by the Florida Launch in 2013, but I can't find anything at all that indicates he ever played a single game with them beyond playing on their practice squad in 2017. This, in my view, means that whatever time he may have spent in MLL/PLL/NLL does not serve to add to his notability. nf utvol (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if he never played in the MLL/PLL/NLL, that makes the case weaker, though he still arguably meets GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Can find news articles referencing above player which seems to be reliable secondary source^[1] Krishnpriya123 (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reference you mentioned is from The Hoya, a student-run school newspaper, and wouldn't really be appropriate for establishing notability in this case. nf utvol (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's still an actual print newspaper. Looking at their website, they seem to be somewhat independent of the university. The Hoya source doesn't count for much but it still helps just a tad little bit (when combined with the other sources). ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not appear to have the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG and doesn't appear to meet any other notability guideline. The Syracuse.com article is primarily interview prose as it is. Let'srun (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I found this also although some of it is the same as the first Syarcuse.com link Beanie posted. Here's this additional coverage too though it's not as good. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much coverage in more notable publications. Mainly local sources. Article made in 2015 by a single editor who may have been intimate with the subject. Single purpose account. Ramos1990 (talk)
Delete, I always try and find sources for a Keep. Why delete what someone else has worked hard to create unless you really have to? That is my take at least. In this case, the source simply is not notable and is mostly just re-mentioned in his own school list. Not a reliable, or independent, or secondary source! It stands to be deleted. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://thehoya.com/uncategorized/after-four-years-in-gray-kahoe-returns-to-msf-wearing-orange/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fire (Kids See Ghosts song)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Chart performance does not indicate notability, no awards or honors, not recorded by several notable artists, bands, or groups. Moreover, mostly album reviews support the article, not a single independent source talking only about the song itself. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the song has received significant coverage despite a lack of independent sources, having 25 that are relevant to it (not including chart positions). The live performance further constitutes notability because it goes into detail about the setting and the song also charted in six countries, which is a good amount and can help with notability when the previous are all true. --K. Peake 08:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Field Trip (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Junya (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Me (¥$ song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frank's Track

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

Fails WP:NSONG; coverage mentioning this track is more about Wolves. Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Burn (¥$ song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fuk Sumn

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

God Breathed

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hands On (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is sufficient background discussion of Federico Vindver's appearance and the recording process, alongside how the song was revealed in multiple mentions and chart positions. --K. Peake 17:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This vote does not make sense. Do you have reliable sources of which this song is the subject? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the album reviews cited include substantive, in-depth coverage about this song. My interpretation of WP:GNG and WP:NSONG is that especially when combined with other indicia like chart performance, an article can be notable per WP:SIGCOV even if it fails the WP:NSONG requirement of focused/individualized articles. However, that interpretation is subject to the ongoing RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music), so that could change my vote depending on community consensus. Flip^and Flopped ツ 02:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

God Is

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are multiple sources outside of context of the album used in this article referencing the song or Labrinth's contributions, an additional version is noted and it charted in numerous countries. --K. Peake 17:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My Spirit Alive

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good (Don't Die)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am glad to have been notified on the deletion discussion to this article that I created and still stand by its existence, as there is much info discussed from multiple sources of the lawsuit information specifically related to this song and it also charted in multiple countries. --K. Peake 07:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it can be argued that the lawsuit is notable. But notable songs need to be the subject of multiple in-depth independent sources—album reviews do not count. Do you have sources that show this? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 09:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Illest Motherfucker Alive

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in It

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are multiple articles discussing the context of Assassin's feature on this song, not Yeezus itself, multiple remixes, 1 this source is dedicated to the song and it charted in the US. --K. Peake 19:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is the only source about this song. The guideline asks for multiple. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jail (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is much notability of the song's origins being discussed in background and the info around inclusion of "Pt 2", as well as Jay-Z's feature and chart positions are obviously not the be-all-end-all yet the song charted in so many countries these obviously have an affect on notability. --K. Peake 07:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notable songs need to be the subject of multiple in-depth independent sources—album reviews do not count. Do you have sources that show this? WP:NSONG is explicit that charting is only a positive indicator that a search for significant coverage will be successful—charting history does not relax coverage standards for song notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 09:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Is Lord

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Lord (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The multiple sources cited in Jesus is Lord#Release and Reception address the song critically, even within the context of an album review (certainly meeting the standard of a "non-trivial" treatment). The critical sources along with the fact that the song charted in multiple countries allows it to pass WP:NSONG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Album reviews are specified in NSONG to not count towards notability—the song needs to be the subject. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is also quite clear that charting is only a positive indicator for a source for coverage—it does not contribute to the meeting of coverage standards. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my !vote because I placed it on the wrong AfD Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah (Kanye West song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

King (¥$ song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lord I Need You

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

Does not meet WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are multiple sources focused on the song; 1, 2 and 3, numerous chart positions including year-end indicate notability too. --K. Peake 17:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the Christianpost and Genius sources cited above by K. Peake substantively discuss the song, while the Revolt source is a less convincing example. That's two, so enough for WP:NSONG. Flip^and Flopped ツ 01:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kanga (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; only source about this song is the HotNewhipHop piece. Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodrat

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the song's appearance from Mike Tyson received significant coverage and even if the context is album reviews for discussion on the excerpt, these go into details and it charted in multiple countries. --K. Peake 08:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cudi Montage

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

Fails WP:NSONG; only a single piece of coverage about the song itself (the Okayplayer piece); should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do It (¥$ song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

530 (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG, as only source that is about the song is this rather short, routine "this video just came out" spot from Billboard. Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybach Music 2

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Should be redirected to its album (Deeper Than Rap). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never Let Me Down (Kanye West song)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "Never Let Me Down" has been ranked on lists by reliable sources such as Complex, Billboard and Time. There are also multiple sources including the J. Ivy and HotNewHipHop ones focused on the song, it was used in the "Jesus Walks" music video and a cinematic version was also released. --K. Peake 08:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never Abandon Your Family

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

Fails WP:NSONG, should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the coverage may seem to come from album articles, however these directly reference the song's name in both the article titles and their texts, showcasing its notability as do the chart positions. --K. Peake 20:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NSONG specifies that coverage in album reviews does not demonstrate song notability, and that charting does not assist in demonstrating notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My Kink Is Karma

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

Fails WP:NSONG; only reliable coverage is an interview with Into. Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY and WP:NSONG. Good faith nom, but I think NSONG is met. Per nom, the into piece is highly reliable and in-depth, so we just need one more. I looked for more and found an NBC news piece discussing Kelly Clarkson covering the song. The article discusses the cover, which I think is already a sufficient form of substantive coverage (not explicitly forbidden by NSONG). However, it also goes into decent detail about the song itself so as to be substantive: it talks about a new way the song is being adapted in popular culture discusses the story of the song (the cover), discusses the story and themes, references the Into interview, overviews its Chart performance, etc. There's also a recent article in Stellar (magazine) which substantively discusses the song's meaning, because Roan gave the back story behind the song to Alexandra Cooper on the Call Her Daddy podcast. I've added both these sources into the article. Flip^and Flopped ツ 05:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naked in Manhattan

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Sources cited whose subject is this song are a student newspaper, a Substack blog, and a very short spot in Earmilk, which does not appear to be a quality source. Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Susan (drag queen)

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

Does not meet notability criteria. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:00, 5 April 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 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes Energy

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

Fails WP:ORG. was created as an advert from what I can tell and doesn't have sufficient sources from what I could find. EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 00:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "درباره شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی". sccr.ir. Retrieved 2025-04-06.

[2] "شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی". sccr.ir. Retrieved 2025-04-06.

[3] ttps://thehoya.com/uncategorized/after-four-years-in-gray-kahoe-returns-to-msf-wearing-orange/

[1]

[2]

[1]