Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

3 February 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 02	February 04 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Kingdom of Malwa

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

The article frames the "Kingdom of Malwa" as a standalone entity, but it primarily details the Paramara dynasty, which already has a dedicated article. The Paramara rule over Malwa is extensively covered there, making this article redundant. Article citation Sen(1999) refer to the Paramara dynasty, not a distinct "Kingdom of Malwa" separate from the dynasty which contradicting some sources in the article. The infobox lists the kingdom lifespan as 800–1304 and the narrative begins with the Paramaras as Rashtrakuta vassals in 800 and claims independence only in 947. This conflates the dynasty origins with the kingdom founding, misleadingly extending its timeline (see main article Paramara dynasty(948–1305) for better understanding. ) Further specific claims ("...until 948 when it declared its independence under the House of Paramara...") lack direct citations. References like Prasad, History of Mediaeval India and Austin, City of Legends are tertiary sources with broad, non-specific quotes that do not directly support the article detailed chronology (eg. battles, reign dates). Critical events, such as Siyaka II sack of Manyakheta (972) or Bhoja alliance with the Cholas, are unsupported by the cited sources. Claims like Malwa becoming a "province of the Gurjara kingdom" (c. 1150) are oversimplified. The Paramaras faced intermittent subjugation but retained autonomy, which the article misrepresents as direct provincial status. The Paramara dynasty article, as the "Kingdom of Malwa" here is indistinguishable from the dynasty rule. The article fails to meet the criteria for a standalone position. It is better to delete this POV-fork, as it contains original chronological synthesis and duplicates existing coverage. NXcrypto Message 08:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, India, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. NXcrypto Message 08:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kayrros

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

Promotional company page with no reliable coverage – not corresponding WP:NCORP. Taking off shortly (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

InnovaFeed

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

Pure promotion, massive usage of pdfs and primary sources, no reliable third party independent coverage. At least Too Soon. Taking off shortly (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meero

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

Not notable company (startup) with no independent WP NCORP coverage. Taking off shortly (talk) 08:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio De La Torre

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

No good coverage can be found, not notable person according to the Wikipedia's general notability guideline Taking off shortly (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Olatunji Okuku

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

Notability not presented; promotin; possibly paid news placement Taking off shortly (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stromness Primary School

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

This primary school is not notable for an article. Patre23 (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and United Kingdom. Patre23 (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nkiru Olumide-Ojo

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

Not a single relialbe independnet source to meet WN ANYBIO or GNG. Generally not notable businesswoman/ columnist. Removed some dead or not related links Cinder painter (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B1t

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Only sources in article are Navi.gg, ESL, (both of which are not independent of the subject), and HLTV (unreliable per WP:VGRS). A WP:BEFORE search does not find anything of substance either. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 14:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Ukraine. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 14:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you search Ukrainian language sources? The player is Ukrainian, Counter-strike is pretty big there, so I'd be surprised if there's wasn't some level of coverage since he's been on the roster of two-major winning rosters. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found some sources from isport.ua and ua.tribuna.com, but I am unsure if those count for notability. IgelRM (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kaiser-e-Hind Fortress

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

So far only cited with WP:NEWSORG. The event does not have enough independent significant coverage to warrant a standalone article. – Garuda ^Talk! 13:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. – Garuda ^Talk! 13:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The whole book written on Battle of Kaiser-e-Hind we can add reference from there.

Ahmed, Habib (2015). The battle of Hussainiwala and Qaiser-i-Hind: the 1971 war (1 ed.). Karachi: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-906472-4 PWC786 (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Put Your Hand Inside the Puppet Head

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. The article mostly cites primary sources such as interviews which do not establish notability. The secondary sources cited here only discuss the song briefly, and I cannot find any RSes that discuss the song in-depth. The article is sourced okay, but it does not pass WP:GNG, so it should be merged into They Might Be Giants (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. I noted in the bundle discussion that I think this one has sufficient referencing to meet NSONG and/or GNG. It's close, though, and I doubt there's much to merge, so redirect if there's consensus against notability. --BDD (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, looks like Merge or Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not just from nom's reasoning. The song simply fails WP:NSONG and bears no notability. Eelipe (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Waab station

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

Redirect to Gold Line (Doha Metro). The only thing approaching WP:SIGCOV I found was this, most of which isn't even specifically about the station in question. JTtheOG (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Qatar. JTtheOG (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Station is mentioned on Gulf Times, The Peninsula, and Doha News, certainly enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. Eelipe (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beyblade X season 1

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

WP:REDUNFORK of List of Beyblade X episodes

Also nominating the second season for the same reason:

Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's a redundant fork. There are only two seasons, so having both seasons only under List of Beyblade X episodes would be the wisest move. Eelipe (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.

Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Miminity! Just came to my notice today that both the articles were put on deletion. I have made few changes to the two articles. I also did some changes to this article, fearing it may fall under WP:REDUNFORK. Let me know your thoughts on it. Thank you and have a great day! VizDsouz (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per MOS:TVEPISODELIST (For very lengthy series, generally 80+ episodes, it may be necessary to break the episode list into individual season or story arc lists. and If this is done, the main list of episodes should still contain the entire episode list, appropriately sectioned, without the episode summaries.) Beyblade X currently has 64 episodes and will eventually have 80 episodes. Media Mender 📬✍🏻 10:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Beyblade X season 1 And rename page as simply Beyblade X, just like other programs with several seasons they should just be on one page. OhNoKaren (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Currently at 64 episodes, the episode count is expected to rise beyond 80. For such a series, having these two articles will be reliable in the future. VizDsouz (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajib Kro

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

No SIGCOV sources were found, failing GNG, and there are no significant roles in these films, failing WP:FILMMAKER. GrabUp - Talk 08:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Assam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electrum Bitcoin Wallet

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

The sources show that the subject is not yet notable for an article Patre23 (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Companies. Patre23 (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, such an article already exists in the German Wiki. This doesn't mean that the Electrum is notable but at least shows a demand for this. I also wish to translate the article to other languages that I know. The point of the article is to have a more neutral information about the critical software.

Even after 16 years since release of Bitcoin there are not so many of wallets available.

The ideal wallet also should be open source, community driven and cross platform. Current options are:

Bitcoin Core (Qt) which downloads the full blockchain, too complicated for most users.

Cake Wallet which is based on Electron and the Electrum which is fully cross platform. It even available in PlayStore and F-Droid.

The Electrum exist since 2011 and very well known. It introduced many innovations like simplified validation, seed phrases and Lighting. It also a base for the official NameCoin wallet.

It's endorsed on the bitcoin.org https://bitcoin.org/en/wallets/desktop/windows/electrum/

Please clarify why you think this software is not important.

I'll try to add more back links. Stokito (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although this article should be rewritten, there is some literature investigating the features and security of Electrum. [1], [2], [3] . Less significant coverage: [4], [5], [6]. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Needs to be significantly rewritten to meet WP:MOS, and needs more sources, but they do exist. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 01:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without actual third-party RS coverage. The book sources may be RSes (Packt is a dubious churn-en-out publisher) but they are only 10- and 11-year-old cites to the notion Electrum is "continuously improving", which would probably require a more recent RS to claim. The rest is non-RSes, primary sources and OR. There's nothing here. Is there any solid third-party RS coverage? Not claims there might tentatively be in the tufure - David Gerard (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can find an RS as an example? I mean, there are not so many books which is probably expected for a software. But else would be good as RS? The first Google page shows many reviews, including a popular CoinMarketCap, ZoneBitcoin etc.

In one video I heard the "Electrum is used for 10% of all Bitcoin transfers" which is a big argument for notability. I didn't found the stats to confirm.

Please note that many users can't find a good and trustworthy sources and starting to use some proprietary wallets with dark patterns. I myself was overwhelmed by amount of them. But also users may found a phishing Electrum clone.

That's why it's so important to have an article about the critical software here.

If there are not enough of recent books that mentions Electrum then this is a not so big reason for deletion of the article as for me. Stokito (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Finding RS in the crypto field is tricky, but is possible, e.g. Business Insider calling it the best desktop wallet, an in depth review from Techradar, an in depth review from Money (Money.com). There's also plenty of RS coverage of the attacks on it: ZDNET 2018 ZDNET 2020 Vice. Then there are various bits of academic research discussing different aspects of it: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. WP:NSOFTWARE is clearly met. SmartSE (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Man, It's So Loud in Here

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2006 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG. The article is a very short stub that only cites two primary sources. The song did chart, and there are a few RSes that discuss the song (e.g. the ABC); however, none of them have enough coverage for a standalone article. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there a suitable Redirect target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(She Was A) Hotel Detective

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2004 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. The article mostly cites primary sources such as interviews and does not cite any reliable secondary sources. The article is only briefly covered in RSes (e.g. Pitchfork and this tongue-in-cheek mention by A.V. Club) and does not have enough coverage for an article. This should redirect to They Might Be Giants (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very strongly oppose: Article is fairly well sourced and I, for one, am tired of the "PRIMARY SOURCES IS BAD!!1!1!" attitude. I think it's common sense to say that the information contained in the sources themselves should dictate credibility, not whether they're primary or secondary. —theMainLogan (t•c) 18:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A hopeless stance. Who decides whether "the information contained in the sources themselves dictates credibility"? Geschichte (talk) 09:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Singdarin

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

I've lived in Singapore for more than ten years. "Singdarin" is not a thing. Clubette (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Clubette (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A quick google scholar search for "Singdarin" comes up with 17 results, and a google search finds only 124 results (with similar results ommited). If Singdarin is a thing, it is safe to assume that the good sources are not in English. Machine translation is pretty useless with this word. Anyone who knows Mandarin, Malay or Tamil might be able to find some better sources.

The sources on this article are also really bad. The word Singdarin is mentioned in almost none of the sources, and when it is, it is used as shorthand for Singaporean Mandarin. Clubspike2 (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Denying the existence of Singdarin is no different to denying that Singlish exists. An overwhelming number of Mandarin-speaking Singaporeans use Singdarin in colloquial speech and I find it peculiar that you have not noticed this despite claiming to have lived in Singapore for a decade—which I suppose its possible, if you had mostly just lived among other expats/immigrants and not interacted much with the locals. Many ethnic Chinese Singaporeans are not known to be particularly fluent in Mandarin as compared to their Chinese/Taiwanese counterparts due to their country's multicultural background as well as their huge immersion in English being their main language, which led to the rise of Singdarin. 175.197.10.59 (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's no secret that Singaporeans mix Mandarin and English, but unlike Singlish, I have never ever heard the term "Singdarin". Clubette (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm leaning towards this definitely exists, but a few more academic sources would serve this article better. JungleEntity (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ravinder Kumar (wrestler)

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

A non-notable priest of a Temple, It was actually a redirect to Ravinder Singh (wrestler) but it is vandalised by User:Ravinderkumarpriest, see [12]. There is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. The citation Mapping Histories and Kashmiri Pandits are not about this subject as he is a 1994-born and books were published in 2002 and 2001 respectively. The citation 1 is a blogspot website, 2 is a X (Twitter) post and 3 is an official website. Taabii (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Hinduism, India, and Himachal Pradesh. Taabii (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~: Blatant promotion; qualifies for WP:G11. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the redirect needs to be restored, so I guess I should !vote Redirect. Is there a better way to handle G11-deletable material that overwrites a redirect? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BlackHatWorld

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

I don's see any reliable sources to provide notability. Note that the Yahoo source is from NewMediaWire, which seems to specifically write PR articles. Janhrach (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Technology, Internet, and Websites. Janhrach (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ – BlackHatWorld has a surprising number of hits on google scholar. It is apparently well-known within its field. Most papers only have 30–40 words of usable information, which I don't consider to be significant coverage. However, there are some exceptions. Honor among thieves: A common's analysis of cybercrime economies (cited 32 times, published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) has 150–200 words of potentially usable information. Profiling underground merchants based on network behavior (also published by IEEE) has an 86-word blurb explaining what "BlackHat World" is. I also found a conference paper titled Computer-Supported Cooperative Crime that may or may not be significant coverage – I can't access the whole thing. I can keep looking, but so far, I'm leaning towards keep. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 20:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- After taking a more thorough look, I am less convinced that this meets either the general notability guidelines or website-specific notability guidelines. Everything from APWG is peer-reviewed, but both articles from that conference only count as one source. The other scholarly sources either have the same authors (so again count as one source) or only have trivial coverage. I can't access the kernelmag.dailydot.com source, but based on how it's used, it doesn't look like it has significant coverage. The Ungagged source, which I also can't access, probably isn't independent. Coverage by Paris Martineau is insignificant. If ~~both~~ Tech Business News ~~and Search Engine Round Table (aka Barry Schwartz)~~ were reliable sources, then BlackHatWorld would meet notability guidelines. However, I do not believe this to be the case. So, regrettably, I am changing to delete. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 04:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've stricken my comment about Search Engine Roundtable because coverage in this source is not significant. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 23:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This website is known to promote a lot of online scams, and it's been getting worse in recent years according to a 2024 HackerNoon article that I've just added. For the purpose of educating people about the history and reputation of this "scammer's paradise" it might be a good idea to keep the article for now. --Honos582 (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion should be relisted soon. @Honos582: I agree with you that the article is useful. The question we're trying to determine is whether BlackHatWorld is notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notable, which tends to be a higher bar than the ordinary definition of "notable". For an explanation of why these guidelines exist, see this explanation. We don't want to pass along gossip about a topic – we want a balanced overview of the topic. To do this, we need at least two (though preferably three) reliable sources that have significant coverage of the topic and are independent of the subject. All of these criteria must be met by multiple sources.

We have found several independent sources that have significant coverage, but it is my opinion that only two of them are reliable. Here comes a rather lengthy analysis of every source that I can I access that I believe to have arguably significant coverage. I apologize for its length.

In my analysis, every study with Sadia Afroz as a co-author counts as one source because these studies will all have the same bias (and so don't make our understanding of BlackHatWorld more balanced). A lot of these studies are published through the IEEE and claim to be peer-reviewed. Coverage is significant.

A second scholarly source is published by MDPI. This publisher is hit-or-miss. The actual journal is Mathematics. Looking at the journal's stats, it could very well be reliable. At 70 words, coverage is arguably significant.

One source is an opinion piece published in Tech Business News. I can't find a discussion of the source on Wikipedia, but it has the word "blog" in the url. Here is that website's policy on contributions. I don't think this source is reliable for statements of fact. At best, it is a newspaper blog.

Regarding hackernoon, there was a discussion involving hackernoon in 2019. There seemed to be a consensus that hackernoon was not a reliable source.

Regarding the Huffpost source, see this entry on the frequently discussed source index.

Regarding an article in The Tribune, it's hard to be certain this is independent. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 22:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Satandisk

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

I can't find coverage outside of forums, even there it seems to be a niche gadget. Jay Cubby 05:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Technology, and Computing. Jay Cubby 05:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The best ref I can find is a couple of pages about the UltraSatan in Jamie Lendino's 2019 book Faster than Light: The Atari ST and the 16-bit Revolution. There are passing mentions in a couple of European computer magazines in retrocomputing articles, but I didn't see anything else in-depth. Adam Sampson (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So redirect somewhere or delete? IgelRM (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Travel Portland

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

May not pass WP:NCORP, was dubiously created after related Mr. Dude article was AfD'ed, with its content merged into this article. Might be better to merge everything into "Tourism in Portland, Oregon." PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Oregon. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a refbombed article created specifically as a spin-out of another article at AfD which fails WP:NCORP, specifically the WP:AUD prong (as do a lot of Oregon articles, which is why we have more articles on random businesses in Oregon than any other jurisdiction in the world) but also with regards to significant coverage. The best articles are just local reporting on advertising buys. I agree this could be merged to a specific article on Portland tourism. SportingFlyer T·C 06:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tourism in Portland, Oregon. Clearly does not meet NCORP on its own, but the coverage of campaigns is suitable for the Tourism article. Sounder Bruce 07:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

María Figueroa

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

Fails WP:SINGER. His supposed fame began when he was 5 years old and from then on it has not been revealed for years, and clearly fails. doesn't pass GNG. AgusTates (talk) 04:19, 3 February 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 February 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Othering & Belonging Institute

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

Can't find any sources about it, rather than by it or mentioning some person as being from the institute. Only source in the article is the organization's own website. (Note when searching that it used to be the Haas Institute). Rusalkii (talk) 03:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Health and fitness, Organizations, Politics, Sexuality and gender, Education, Religion, Economics, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UMSL Student Government Association

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:ORG non-commercial organization that does not operate on a national scale or have significant coverage from multiple unrelated sources (many sources are from UMSL or the UMSL student newspaper). The scope of UMSL Student Government Association is limited to the students of UMSL. Similar concerns were brought up in a 2008 AfD discussion but no notable sources were added.

There are also very few of these types of articles on Wikipedia (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Student_governments_in_the_United_States). Articles on that list like Florida Student Association and Hawaii State Student Council are intra-state organizations that work for student populations across whole states whereas the UMSL SGA article serves a single school. GrantPeePee (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and Missouri. GrantPeePee (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borac Hall

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

Hall only seems to lend any notability from the resident basketball club. A Google search only shows sources with passing mentions (the main focus being the club). Aydo h8^[contribs] 02:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Serbia. Aydo h8^[contribs] 02:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Super 6 Baseball rosters

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

The rosters of this tournament are not notable enough to warrant an article. WP:NSPORT / WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Baseball, and Europe. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Super 6 Baseball and Softball as an alternative to deletion. C 679 07:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad Salame

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

Declined prod with additional info added up on competing in Summer Universiade. I don't think that is enough to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]