Wikipedia:List of AfDs closing today

15 April 2025
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 14	April 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Miguel Márquez (footballer)

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of this footballer to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All that came up in my searches were trivial mentions, such as those present in the article. JTtheOG (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Uruguay. JTtheOG (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – At second glance, I have to agree 100% with JTtheOG. That's why I replaced the subject of this page with another Miguel Márquez, and this one is clearly notable, so I vote keep. Better to recycle than to waste. Barr Theo (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Considering that the career as a football player is not the only topic of interest about the subject. Svartner (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner: Note that there was a page move after the nom and before your !vote. JTtheOG (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JTtheOG: Sorry for not understanding it before. Svartner (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner: No worries, I did a poor job of explaining the situation. Cheers, JTtheOG (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ ~~- clearly a notable figure in the pioneering days of Spanish football, WP:COMMONSENSE applies given his career, the online sources, and the clear availability of offline sources.~~

@GiantSnowman: Note that the subject sent to AfD never played Spanish football, but instead in Uruguay in the internet age. JTtheOG (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: JT originally tagged this guy, a 21st century Uruguayan footballer with no SIGCOV. And as I pointed out at the start of the discussion, I replaced him with another Miguel Márquez (the poet), who is clearly notable. Barr Theo (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should NOT overwrite articles. Why is the Uruguayan footballer now at 'poet' disambiguation? Giant Snowman 20:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the article on the Uruguayan footballer? This is a horrendous mess. Giant Snowman 20:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've reverted your nonsense. Please do not repeat this again. Giant Snowman 20:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the poet is notable and want to create a new article about the poet, please create it separately. Do NOT rewrite an existing article, especially while the article is at AfD. Natg 19 (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the Uruguayan footballer of the 2000s is not notable. Giant Snowman 20:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - the Uruguayan footballer of the 2000s is not notable. But Miguel Márquez (sculptor) was also a footballer, so I vote to redirect this page to there. Barr Theo (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a good rationale. "Redirect" should only be used for redirecting a topic to a related topic, not an entirely different person who shares the same name. Natg 19 (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, why would it be reasonable to redirect this page to the page of someone altogether different? Sharing a name and a profession means absolutely nothing. Anwegmann (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Natg 19: and :@Anwegmann: I know it's not a good rationale. This is simply a desperate last-ditch effort to save my 0% deletion ratio (currently 902–0). So, how about you guys help me a little. Its for a good cause and it will be an harmless redirect (wink wink). Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the AfD was about the sculptor/player from the beginning, so therefore, it is not recommended to move the page during the process. Svartner (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Svartner:, Yes, of course. What I'm saying is to redirect this page to the sculptor/player after the process (AKA, if this discussion decides it so). Speaking of which, you haven't spoke your peace yet, so choose wisely (wink wink). Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, low participation and also confusion following the page swap.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—This is a strange AfD. Delete per all above. Weeding through all the confusion, it appears as though this Miguel Márquez fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not appear to have the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG, and a check in corresponding wikis along with TWL didn't come up with anything better. Let'srun (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Let'srun: Yep, that's right. But please note that this article can also be turned into a redirect to Miguel Márquez (sculptor), who was also a footballer. Barr Theo (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose a redirect for the same reason as Anwegmann. Let'srun (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on the sculptor, given that he was also known as a footballer. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand this. The sculptor is not the same person...so why would this article, which is about one person, redirect to another article about a different person? That literally can only serve to confuse anyone redirected because the assumption will be, with no evidence to the contrary, that they are the same person, which they are not. This article clearly needs to be deleted, as the subject lacks WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:GNG. The fact that he has the same name as someone else who was also a footballer is completely immaterial. The author of the article even admitted that the argument for a redirect "it's not a good rationale. This is simply a desperate last-ditch effort to save my 0% deletion ratio." A deletion ratio is not a valid reason to save an article that doesn't deserve to be saved. Anwegmann (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sculptor isn't the same person, but he is a footballer -- someone looking for him might search under the name "footballer" given he was partly known for that, no? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, and that's the problem with the redirect. Someone looking for the Uruguayan footballer named Miguel Márquez will be redirected to the article of a Spanish sculptor who happens to have been a footballer also. If we were to create a redirect, it should be from Miguel Marquez (Spanish footballer). Anwegmann (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there's non-notable subjects of the same name doesn't mean we need to make a specific disambiguation (e.g. Miguel Marquez (Spanish footballer)) for the redirect to the notable subject. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Since they are different subjects (the Spanish player/sculptor and the Uruguayan one). Svartner (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I talked to Barr Theo and redirect seems to be the best option for him, without causing harm to the project as a whole. Apparently no one is willing to keep the Uruguayan player's article. Svartner (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is here, and as you can see, my intention wasn't WP:CANVASS, even though it turned out to be exactly that. Barr Theo (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you were recently warned about canvassing by Robby.is.on. JTtheOG (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. I even told Robbyison that my WP:CANVASS with GiantSnowman was a one-time thing. And in fact, my conversation with Svartner wasn't meant to be a CANVASS. I just told him to cast a vote, and what came after Svartner's "Why?" was merely venting. I even said "I suppose there is nothing I can do to now".

You know better than anyone that I'm at the absolute peak of my powers. I literally just got my first-ever GA article a few hours ago... Do you really think I would risk my Wikipedian career over such futility? Barr Theo (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to see this as anything but WP:CANVASSing in light of what you wrote above about this very issue: "I know it's not a good rationale. This is simply a desperate last-ditch effort to save my 0% deletion ratio (currently 902–0). So, how about you guys help me a little. Its for a good cause and it will be an harmless redirect (wink wink)." You freely admit that your argument for a redirect is not based on merit but rather based on personal interest. This has got to be the strangest AfD I have ever seen. I can't seem to make heads or tails of it beyond the very clear fact that the article in question deserves to be deleted and only deleted. A redirect to a completely different person's article is totally senseless. Anwegmann (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The focus on saving one's deletion percentage is a tad bit silly, but I don't think the redirect option is wholly unreasonable given the other subject was a footballer (i.e. he'd be the only Miguel Marquez footballer article on the site, just under a different title - thus it isn't that unusual to have the title "(footballer)" redirect to his article). BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anwegmann: Those "wink winks" were before Robbyison's warning... Barr Theo (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It will harm the project as a whole, because the Uruguayan player in question will implicitly be conflated with the Spanish sculptor/player without any explicit explanation that they are not the same person. That is, at the very, very least, misleading; but it's actually really just incorrect. To me, that is doing harm to the project by making two completely different people appear to be the same person. Anwegmann (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Ronald Reagan (Arlington, Virginia)

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

Unable to find any coverage on the statue besides its unveiling in 2011: WP:NOTNEWS. मल्ल (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Visual arts, and Virginia. मल्ल (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, already been saved by the original author since your nomination. One of the many good sources added is from the Smithsonian, and now easily meets GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post oped is about the person and only mentions the statue in the title. The other added sources are also just about the unveiling, still doesn’t pass WP:SUSTAINED. मल्ल (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport where the statue is located. This article is a three sentence stub. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's an article quality assessment, not a source assessment. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage in RS, meets GNG, and needs expansion. APK hi :-) (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and HEY. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. This is an opinion of the notability of the work of art and its significant coverage, not an idealistic view of the man. Bearian (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By my count, we have one source that counts for notability. I've done research and I can't find any others.

Source assessment table
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Smithsonian		Database entry	✘ No
14 News		Only 2 sentences are about the statue. The rest are about the man.	✘ No
NBC News			✔ Yes
Politico		Only 3 sentences are about the statue, the rest are about the man. And one of those sentences are about the people who were at the unveiling, not really about the statue itself, either.	✘ No
Washington Post	This is an opinion-piece about a writer's opinion of the man.	The vast majority is the writer's feelings towards the man, not the statue.	✘ No
Raegan Library		Database Entry	✘ No
Washington Times		Just a photo with one sentence about the statue.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

-- Mike 🗩 16:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Are we really creating articles for statues? Obi2canibe (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This comment offers no reason for deletion, and there are many Wikipedia entries about statues... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to make some wise guy comment to Obi2canibe but then realized that you are a longtime and experienced editor. Better late than never I guess, unless your comment was satire. In any case, maybe think about or reconsider your delete vote? Thanks. As for the sourcing concern above, the Smithsonian is an adequate GNG source for establishing notability (besides, this statue is at the entrance of one of the most notable airports in the U.S., and its notability is both sustained and recognized daily by those who view it). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Smithsonian is the absolute worst source of these, just data in an inventory, not analysis or substantial coverage. A statue does not inherit notability from its location – if its location at a notable airport is so significant, it should be covered at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, which does not even mention this. The airport (like others) has a lot of art seen by thousands every day that don't need standalone articles. Reywas92^Talk 23:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I’m in agreement with Mike. While, I’m open to check out new sources, his source assessment is apt. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source assessment table is correct and shows lack of significant coverage. Asparagusstar (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport#Terminals and facilities or #21st century per Obi2canibe, especially when the pages are created as a single sentence, and the second and third sentences (does not qualify for HEY lol) only added after nominated for deletion. Reywas92^Talk 23:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, source table is correct/lack of WP:SIGCOV. GoldRomean (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Owl of Minerva (journal)

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

The article has been subject of multiple PRODs and notability flags. Xpander (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Philosophy. Xpander (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The journal has been indexed by IBZ, IPB and MLA.[1] And I think it meets C1, C2 and C3, as it is cited by other reliable sources, example: [2] Xpander (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with Xpander above. It is notable - more content can be added. Asteramellus (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a significant philosophy journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes on indexing alone. Definitely need expanding. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not up to us to decide whether this is an important journal or not. Such a conclusion should be based on RS. Here we have some listings in databases that don't have the selectivity required by NJournals. Neither do some routine citations to articles published in this journal indicate notability. Fails WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Alesci

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

Subject does not appear to have the WP:SIGCOV necessary to meet WP:SPORTSBASIC. The best I could find was some mentions in match reports and this bio [[3]] Let'srun (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, New Jersey, and New York. Let'srun (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no notability. GoldRomean (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thrasher (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (mostly primary) GIJ materials, plus a mention in an unrelated novel. Should be redirected to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. This can be broken out into an article again if the section is expanded with third-party sources sufficient to show independent notability. BD2412 T 20:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Cobra characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per various arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) (which no one wanted to copy to all of the simultaneous 52 AFDs of the same topic area). BOZ (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as two different Merge target articles were suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, let's do this proper. Action Force kid, though I did enjoy the Devil's Due America's Elite stuff, so I have a passable working knowledge of G. I. Joe. My recollection is that with perhaps one or two exceptions, the fellows packed with the vehicles didn't get much attention as it was the vehicles that sold them. Thrasher sadly seems to be one of these cases.

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_G_I_Joe_Roster/wvYYEQAAQBAJ? - if admissible (and this would be a good venue to hash this out so we can bundle nominate any others; I don't see any problem with it as a non-licenced and therefore non-primary book published professionally) only has passing mentions.
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Ultimate_Guide_to_G_I_Joe_1982_1994/_BNjDwAAQBAJ? - with the same caveat; fragment of behind-the-scenes info which would make a nice footnote, but nothing in depth.
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Complete_Encyclopedia_to_GI_Joe/rsDmjZyu5zwC? - only passing mentions.
https://www.cbr.com/tragic-gi-joe-villains/ - this is what I'd call a 'third source', as in if we had two good ones I'd count it, but in isolation it's pretty weak.

That is kind of it. Given the character's obscurity even within the franchise - I doubt he'd break into most Joe fans' top 5 Dreadnoks, I doubt print material will bring up more than passing mentions. I would say Merge with List of Cobra characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep for all those nominations. While it is likely that some or many of the nominated G.I. Joe characters warrant merging, it is hard to believe that the required WP:BEFORE has actually been done for all of them. It's impossible to have been done properly in the mere minute(s) between the posting of the nomination. Anonrfjwhuikdzz has already summed up very well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) why things should not be done like this, and I hope this will be reflected in the close. The way it has been done, these nomations are wasting editor's time. A merge discussion on the character's talk page would be a more suitable avenue to address concerns. Daranios (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios I actually think having this one relisted to centralise discussion, allow time to properly check sources and possibly serve as a template for the ones that do need merging might be helpful.

Comment: @BD2412 @Liz confusingly, while List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters is named like a franchise catch-all page, it actually seems to only list the members of the G.I. Joe Team; List of Cobra characters covers the baddies, of which Thrasher was/is one. Therefore the latter makes a better merge target (though honestly both lists should be merged into a single franchise one as I can think of at least three characters who've changed sides, but that's a discussion for elsewhere). BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BoomboxTestarossa: Fair enough from my side, one should be manageable. Just pinging the other procedural keep !voters/commentators to let them know this one should be treated differently @BOZ, Rtkat3, Iljhgtn, Anonrfjwhuikdzz, and Oaktree b:. Daranios (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Cobra characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. The Ultimate Guide to G.I. Joe 1982-1994, The Ultimate Guide to G.I. Joe 1982-1994: Identification and Price Guide and The G.I. Joe Roster, p. 245 would provide the minimum coverage with regard to notability, but they more or less only have plot summary (although I cannot see p. 246). The CBR article has some commentary, but should not be used for notability. So overall, I think a section in a list is best. Daranios (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. I sympathize that 30+ discussions is far too many to handle from a single editor. Now that this is narrowed to one, it is easier to review and come to a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

L'Atelier Animation

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

does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies. The article lacks significant independent coverage from reliable sources that establish notability Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Comics and animation, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete. fails WP:SIRS fifteen thousand two hundred twenty nine (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not meet WP:GNG--Kopnakolicti (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I added films that L'Atelier Animation helped make. It has been profiled in reliable sources including Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Animation Magazine and Cartoon Brew. Kansas Reimer (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cinesite. I can see a lot of very niche trade references about the company ... though I can't see the Variety or Hollywood Reporter profiles (can you link them User:Kansas Reimer?). There's enough out there that delete would be overkill. But I'd need to be convinced that it couldn't be included in the website for the company, rather than this division. Nfitz (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cinesite as not independently notable but relevant to that article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relistng. No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the studio may have notability, however, in-depth coverage is not sufficient at the moment Cinder painter (talk) 09:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajinder Gupta

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

Completely promotional article, paid contribs and the company he founded doesn't even have it's own article so there's no use having his. If some one searches his company's name this article doesn't pop up. The article has total 1500 views and is a stub from 10 yrs ago _saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 09:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Finance, and Business. _saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 09:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From my observation, the article is not at all promotional and adheres to WP:NPOV. The article also has multiple reliable sources and thus passes WP:BIO. The absence of an article of the company he established is not a reason to delete this page. Same goes with the pageviews and class of the article. Warriorglance(talk to me) 11:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Three sources are generic profiles and don't provide in-depth coverage of the subject, and the final one just links to the most recent issue of Hindustan Times. All sources I could find online are, if anything, about Trident Group more than Gupta. Cortador (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: The Padma Shri award seems notable. There is a limited amount of sourcing that confirms the win. [4] is typical of more recent coverage tha feels promotional. Also come coverage about the cricket association [5]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- From my point of view, the person is presumed notable since he has received a award by Govt. Of India as per WP:ANYBIO, by searching him, I found that their are multiple reliable sources with significant coverage on subject which confirms it's notablity. Since, we are discussing on person not on its organization, so it's not a valid point to delete as his established company doesn't have a article. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deegree

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG. 0 sources found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. MidnightMayhem 14:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google Scholar turns up multiple reliable references —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:37, 12 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!} 22:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the list in Open_Geospatial_Consortium, which is where other software using OGC standards is. There could also be a reference from Deegree to Open_Geospatial_Consortium. Lamona (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Open Source Geospatial Foundation, which is the parent organization, and its article already includes the deegree project. MarioGom (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm of Love Tour

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

Unnotable concert. No coverage in sources. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rhythm of Love (Kylie Minogue album)#Promotion, similar to Minogue's Enjoy Yourself Tour. Damian Vo (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there more support for Redirecting this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rhythm of Love (Kylie Minogue album)#Promotion, album article is well sourced and can cover the tour adequately. MidnightMayhem 11:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rhythm of Love (Kylie Minogue album) as a separate section. A stand-alone article like this rarely gets significant coverage, but it's close enough that it can the part of the album article. A redirect in this instance is like "throwing out the baby with the bath water" - an excessive over-reaction that would diminish the project. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 17 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 14:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bass-T

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG based on a WP:BEFORE search. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the subject does appear to have an extensive catalogue of releases. Out of these, three singles do appear to have had impact on national charts: Germany and Austria. ResonantDis_tortion 19:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently lacks sufficient citations from reliable, independent sources to fully establish his notability. RolandSimon (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to the charts the page has another good source, and from a slight search in Google news I found another moderately good source. LastJabberwocky (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that this source adds anything towards notability personally. From my perspective, if that's the best we got, then that actually supports the argument that the individual isn't notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:28, 17 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!} 22:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete: My previous statement should've called a comment adding a source to our search for good sources, but nothing else seems to be found, and on its own the review I referenced isn't notability giver, even through has relatively SIGCOV. LastJabberwocky (talk) 05:04, 21 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 Suggestibles

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

A comedy group that improvises musicals. It's an uncited biography of living people, which failed speedy in 2007 for lack of independent reliable sources, so I'm going through this process. LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Theatre, and United Kingdom. LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like they still exist according to their website[6] but the only coverage they've received is an interview on a local website in 2019[7]. Unless better sources can be found, they don't meet wp:gng. Orange sticker (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MILL improv group with very little press coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: limited amount of mentions in Gnews above, but sourcing is lacking. We simply don't have enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of hits with sustained secondary coverage available via Proquest, including bylined article in a national newspaper stating this group is one of the "hottest comedy tickets in the north-east". See for example: Guardian, 2007, Evening Chronicle 2004, Journal 2010, Northern Echo 2011. ResonantDis_tortion 09:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, can you drop a couple of more things we can draw from these articles. I still figuring out the best way to find sources for free, and your source isn't free showing me only a preview :). The only things I got are: "Newcastle-based" and one source says they are in-demand. LastJabberwocky (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Hi @LastJabberwocky You can get free access to a variety of databases, including Proquest, via the Wikipedia Library. You need 500 edits and to have had an account for 6 months: Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library. As well as Proquest it also includes access to the Gale database, which also has hits for the subject, such as this one providing bylined commentary on the popularity of the subject's performances. ResonantDis_tortion 11:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added several of these sources to the article, so it is no longer unreferenced. This includes a further sigcov article, archived here. Article still needs work. ResonantDis_tortion 15:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for spending your time on a random article! Do you think the cited sentences would be enough for a servable article; and delete the rest. I assume you scanned all the internet and nothing else would be cited if you will not cite it :). LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I did a minimum level of analysis to ensure the article is no longer uncited. Please make no further assumptions. For the record, there are so many hits on proquest, ranging from bylined coverage to pure listings, that it's a non-trivial job to trawl through and work out what text can and can't be cited. ResonantDis_tortion 18:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even with new sources provided, which were human interest stories about local artists, these two improv performers still do not meet notability guidelines, certainly not WP:ENT, making "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find I cannot agree with this characterisation of the 6 sources provided above. The subject has been performing for at minimum 10-years, according to The Journal source, and evidently has a level of cultural ENT impact given these quotes from bylined secondary sources: "hottest comedy tickets in the north-east" (Guardian), "one of the in-demand acts on the stand-up circuit" (Northern Echo), "Infamous" (Journal), "a high standard of entirely improvised comedy" (Journal), "rise to the top of Newcastle's cultural agenda with the improvisational comedy troupe The Suggestibles" (Evening Chronicle), "despite having no script or plans of action, The Suggestibles managed to turn around an hour-and-a-half of comedy gold" (Shields Gazette), and "It's proved so popular in recent years" (Journal). ResonantDis_tortion 19:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as they do have a dedicated article in a national UK newspaper the Guardian already referenced in the article as well as multiple regional newspaper coverage so I believe they pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete/Weak Keep: ResonantDistortion found good sources confirming the notability of the subject, but there not still not enough coverage. At least currently, the Suggestibles page has the coverage that they exist and perform in this list of clubs. If we get just a little bit more, the would be finally convincing. I searched archive.org for the Suggestibles, and there is nothing. LastJabberwocky (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Wilton

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In response to the recent PROD nomination, I had a look at the sources. It seems quite possible that the name "Richardus de Wilton" or suchlike was an artefact, suggested by some misunderstood manuscript material. So I was happy to see the PROD stand. I deprecate the further business of bringing the matter up at AfD. There may be some less obvious source that validates Wilton, and there is no need to make the deletion emphatic. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Philosophy, History, and England. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is difficult to assess. Three dates are given for his death, and it's not clear why or how the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) determines that 1239 is correct, rather than 1339 or 1439. However, notability would seem to be determined by how much coverage there is in each of the sources used by the Catholic Encyclopaedia, and how reliable those sources are. The questions about the biographical claims suggest that they are not very reliable. @Charles Matthews:, it sounds as if you have been able to access the original sources - would you be able to clarify how much coverage there is in each source? Also, as a matter of interest, are the works he wrote extant, or just reported in these sources? (My searches led me to sources about a Richard Wilton who was a Benedictine monk at Glastonbury Abbey and studied at Leuven. [8] This seems to have been during the time when Robert Stillington was Bishop of Bath and Wells, in the second half of the 15th century. That Richard Wilton apparently failed to pass on information about a plot against the king in 1500 [9], so he doesn't actually fit with even the latest date for this Richard Wilton. I didn't find anything about this Richard Wilton, though I'm probably not looking in the right places.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: I didn't go very deeply. It was more like a WP:BEFORE-compliant assessment, for example seeing what came up on Google Books. I did pick up a bibliography of manuscripts in Cambridge libraries, which seemed a fair test of general notability. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless this fellow has captured the imagination of a very diligent doctoral student, I can't imagine that we will find sufficient information for an article. He wrote (if he did) over 200 years before the printing press, so his works would have existed in very few manuscript copies. He would have written in Latin, and using a latinate form of his name ("Richardus de Wilton"), but we should expect spelling variations as spelling was far from settled. The different death dates are a good indication that accurate information does not exist. Even the one good source listed here mainly talks about who he isn't. Lamona (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, little reliable source coverage. GoldRomean (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Durusau

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

While certainly accomplished, I cannot find enough in-depth references to show that he meets WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Law. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, United States of America, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to High places in cyberspace. I have found three reviews of his book High places in cyberspace: in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies [10], in Semeia : an Experimental Journal for Biblical Studies [11] (p 166), and in the Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion [12]. So it looks as though the book is notable, per WP:NBOOK. We could either write an article about the book, or keep the article about him, adding references including the book reviews. There are certainly newspaper articles which verify that he worked as a defence lawyer, which don't contribute to notability but would probably be better sources than a law report. I haven't yet found secondary sources about his work with OASIS or ISO standards. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could move the current article to the book title, to maintain history, and make the article about the book, which per your sourcing looks notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Onel5969:: I would have no objection to moving the current title to the book title, but I personally do not have either the time or interest to write an article about the book. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or move as suggested. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR / WP:NBOOK based on the book reviews found by RebeccaGreen, and no objection to a move to the book title following the AfD. A redirect would also be fine if someone does decide to create a separate article about the book prior to this AfD's closure. MCE89 (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and poorly sourced article. May be better to rework this in draftsapce if it can be salvaged. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, Weak deletewhen fully weighed and differentiated between the works by the scholar and not about the scholar, then a weak delete could be justifiably argued. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a deletion discussion about a person, and yet so far the discussion has not come to a consensus about this person, and has instead determined that a book they wrote - which does not currently have an article - is notable (noting here that the arguments for keeping that have been presented are all about the book, and do not establish notability for the author). The AfD closer cannot be responsible for implementing such a reframing, and it isn't reasonable to move what is patently a biography to a title about a book without reframing. As such, this currently looks like a "delete" outcome - I'm relisting for one more week in the hope that someone will do something to avoid such a closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote was not considering notability from the perspective of WP:NBOOK but if anything WP:AUTHOR, the BLPs consensus is leaning if anything towards a Keep if I were to look at it again. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further updating my !vote to a "Weak delete". Iljhgtn (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I said in my !vote, the book reviews are enough to establish notability under WP:NBOOK or under WP:NAUTHOR (specifically criteria 3, which says that an individual who created a significant and notable work can themselves be considered notable). With authors who have written a single notable book, it's obviously a common outcome to prefer having an article about the book rather than about the author, since having both is typically redundant. But the sources that establish WP:NBOOK notability here also establish WP:NAUTHOR notability, and as the nominator here said themselves, there is value to retaining the article history. So I don't see any reason why we shouldn't keep this article on the basis of WP:NAUTHOR, and a discussion can be had outside of AfD about whether or not to reframe it to be about the book. MCE89 (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:32, 17 April 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!} 22:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the article lacks independent sources pointing to the notability of the scholar, and as written the article is not a good foundation to an article about the book itself. The author is an expert in the sorts of fields (open-document standards) that lead to high support on Wikipedia fora, but the article has still not had added to it either (a) the types of mainstream press citations of authority that would allow a GNG keep or (b) the larger scholarly concensus (tenure, awards, high citation indices, reviews for multiple publications) that would make for a keep. I won't object if someone wants to take the article and try to make a case for the book. And I don't feel strongly either way, but given the multiple relists and the need for non-involved comments from people who regularly review WP:PROF, this (general inclusionist) suggests delete. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksei Gubanov

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:N. Deleted in Russian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, a couple of russian sources covered after he was recognized as a foreign agent on 4 April, even with this news the only notable magazine that covered it was Lenta.ru, which is blacklisted. Russian wiki also deleted the page. LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is also a draft, Draft:Alexey Gubanov, which I have declined because this article exists. Is there any content or sources in the draft that can be added to the article? (I have not reviewed either the draft or the article in detail, and do not at this time have an opinion on notability.) Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and merge. I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm not putting any weight into whether or not the subject has a Russian language article. Bearian (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If this is Userfied, which editor's User space should this go?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Sourcing is weak in both the nominated article and draft. If the subject is notable, I'd expect there to be reliable coverage online in Russian and maybe English, but I couldn't find any. Yue🌙 18:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samia Gore

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

Dear editors, the article subject, Samia Gore, is requesting a soft deletion on English Wikipedia, claiming the content is promotional and inaccurately presented. I would also like to highlight that the notability is somewhat unclear. Thank you in advance for your thoughts on this! SG2025wiki (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easy keep [13], [14], plus the Essence article now used for sourcing. There are many more that come up, showing notability. Keeping the article also promotes gender equality and helps combat gender bias, as a person of colour in the USA. Oaktree b (talk) 20:44, 8 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!} 22:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - while the subject is accomplished, she has not gotten MSM attention nor won a major award, either of which would be a completely objective test of notability (compare that to a Grammy Award winning musician, or an art curator who was lauded by a newspaper of record). Bearian (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of the 2011 Super Outbreak

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

While the outbreak is very notable, this article was initially denied at AfC based on WP:NOTMEMORIAL and was later published into the mainspace anyway. The article contains several errors (such as stating the Hackleburg tornado killed 72 people but only listing 70), and the table at the top does not add up to the correct number of people killed on the correct dates. The top table also does not seem to jive with the list of fatalities below it in regards to the date. The table also lists numerous Jane and John Doe's, implying that those people are unknown. In fact, those people are known, but likely do not have names published online in an easily found place. I believe an alternative to outright deletion could be to condense this into a section at 2011 Super Outbreak or to break the names (provided the information is correct) into separate tables in their respective tornado's section at 2011 Super Outbreak. United States Man (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NOTMEMORIAL only applies to non-notable casualty lists, which isn’t the case here. Other than that, nothing said warrants deletion. Instead of immediately sending it to AfD, be bold and fix it. E_F⁵ 23:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I have a computer, an in-depth reasoning:
1. The Teahouse decline is moot since I published it after another experienced user told me it was fine.
2. NOTMEMORIAL only applies to deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. Note that every person on the list has had some form of coverage, and as such does not fall under NOTMEMORIAL.
3. This is far from a WP:TNT situation needing the deletion of a large list. Slap a {{cleanup|reason=Missing people in the list}} tag instead of immediately taking it to AfD, or you can one-up that and actually fix the issue.
4. The table also lists numerous Jane and John Doe's, implying that those people are unknown and he table at the top does not add up to the correct number of people killed on the correct dates aren't policy-based and don't hold weight. — E_F⁵ 12:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a pretty cut and dry case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL as well as WP:NOTDATABASE (I read the above arguments about this not being a case of NOTMEMORIAL, but I'm unconvinced). I understand that they can all be sourced, but the vast, vast majority of this list is simply a reprint of two news articles listing the names of the deceased. I suppose you could make an argument that these could be broken out into sections on the individual tornado pages. nf utvol (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weitz & Luxenberg P.C.

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

I don't see independent significant coverage outside of a scandal (and even that is largely tabloid sources like New York Post). According to the talk page, this article is the product of a UPE sock farm to highlight negative aspects of law firms they have issues with Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, United States of America, and New York. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose a deletion, although a redirect to Sheldon Silver, who was of counsel to the firm, is reasonable and appropriate. The article as written is irredeemable. Bearian (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Crazy 2: Beyond the Law

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

This doesn't appear to meet WP:NFILM / WP:GNG. No obvious WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found a review from DVD Talk. I did a search under the Japanese title and got some hits, however the most frequent mentions appear to be in Google Books, which Google Translate won't help with. The difficulty, however is that the title seems to be "Elegy of Betrayal" in Japanese and there's apparently another movie by that title, so we'd need someone with some level of fluency to be able to tell if any of that is useful. I was able to get a good snippet in list view to see that this does mention the correct film, however the same issue applies - I can't tell if it's actually useful for establishing notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:38, 11 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!} 22:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gun Crazy: A Woman from Nowhere: Or to Atsushi Muroga. Two obvious and pretty standard alternatives to deletion. Merge what can be merged. -Mushy Yank. 09:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Baghdad (1821)

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

Amongst the articles mentioned in the "Slicing history into pieces" thread (the two other articles are already nominated here [15] [16]). There is more info about other stuff than the siege itself, the latter which is not even fully sourced. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:26, 8 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) 20:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Support per nom.

Iranian112 (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ottoman–Iranian War (1821–1823). I'd rather see the article redirected vs. outright deleted. Because it contains a lot of work finding and composing citations and some information not in the main article. It may be useful in the future. Also the redirect itself is worth saving. Also there is useful information in the talk page. -- GreenC 00:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, dear GreenC, we have put a great deal of effort into this page. We have carefully researched the necessary sources, and we have thoroughly discussed the rationale behind this page with you step by step in the "talk" section. Therefore, I strongly oppose the deletion of this article. Anyone who wishes can come and discuss it with me many of the answers people are looking for are already available on the talk page. The Siege of Baghdad article is not a simple or trivial page. It covers a battle that is as crucial and significant as the Battle of Erzurum. Are you seriously considering deleting or turning this historically important article which changed the course of the war into a mere redirect? @HistoryofIran @Iranian112

Apologies if we disturbed you by tagging you, but this is truly an important matter. Wishing you a good day. BEFOR01 (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"? Lectonar (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is referring to himself and the people who took part in developing this page. Klass12345 (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BEFOR01, why are you first opposing this now? You were part of all these discussions [17] [18] [19], all which mentioned that article (and others) getting redirected. I'm not sure what you expected. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I wouldn't think much about the tone of your message, but why do you evaluate the issues from your own perspective?

We are talking about the Baghdad siege page, if you want, do not deviate from the subject

+Also, I didn't say anything about the redirection of the page, I just wanted to change something wrong about the chronological order in the template. I don't see any controversial issues on those pages you mentioned as 1,2,3. As for Diyala and Mandali, I didn't know about the limit of the number of sources, but now that I know and I have knowledge about the accuracy and logic of the sources, I am trying to delete these pages. You can see what I mean here: here BEFOR01 (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am literally talking about the Baghdad siege, thus I am not deviating from anything, nor is there anything wrong with my tone. Sorry, but judging by this and your past comments, I think there is a language barrier here, so let's just end this discussion of ours here. And as for your comment below, please be aware of WP:BLUDGEON. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you can review all my posts in the discussion; I have no objection to that. However, please do not try to minimize or deny a historical fact using such excuses.

If I am the one who really derailed the thread, please respond directly to the arguments in my previous posts. If you cannot refute my responses, then the delete or redirect warning placed on the Siege of Baghdad (1821) article should be removed.

That is not a problem for me, but if you are deliberately biased and trying to minimize the historical significance of the event, then that is something that really needs to be questioned. BEFOR01 (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but if you are deliberately biased and trying to minimize the historical significance of the event, then that is something that really needs to be questioned

Casting WP:ASPERSIONS against me because you don't agree with me is not a good look. If you truly believe this, feel free to report me to WP:ANI. If not, please keep it to yourself. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I agree the article repeats more than necessary about the war, but I don't think that implies the siege is non-notable by any means. Several sources which appear decent (although I don't read Turkish) are cited, and two sections with paragraphs of detail on the siege itself and analysis of it are present. There's too much to merge, and the nominator has not demonstrated that the siege is non-notable -- as such this should have been a merge proposal (to be clear I am also not in support of that). Mrfoogles (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The event is not prominent in WP:RS as far as I've seen. The fact that there is little info about the siege itself is pretty concerning in regards to WP:NOTABLE. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The siege is probably the second or third most important event during the Ottoman–Iranian War (1821–1823). The main article needs expansion it's way too brief and there is good content/sourcing in the Siege article that can be integrated - also good conversations on the talk page. After that, we will better be able to judge what if anything needs splitting off. I want to do this work of expansion but my "day job" (fixing dead links) has been time consuming. -- GreenC 15:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, stating that the event "does not appear prominently in reliable sources" is quite a subjective assessment when it comes to historical topics like this. We have citations from both Turkish and Persian academic sources, and these sources thoroughly examine the siege’s impact on the course of the war. Such regional sources are indeed within the scope of WP:RS, especially when they are directly related to the geography of the event.

Secondly, you say that "there is little information about the siege," but we've already questioned both the accuracy and logic of that claim in the first paragraph. This siege was a decisive event that directly influenced the outcome of the entire war. Trying to condense such a significant and impactful development into just a few paragraphs in the main article could both disrupt the structure there and diminish the historical importance of the siege itself.

Furthermore, this siege is the second most critical event of the war. We've said this before and we’ll say it again: after Erzurum, it was the most consequential engagement.

In conclusion, if the article's content were truly weak, I would have removed it myself long ago. Instead of rushing into deletion or merging, a more encyclopedic approach would be to improve the article through constructive contributions. BEFOR01 (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ottoman–Iranian War (1821–1823): Reading through the article as it is now carefully it appears there is actually not much in the way of information about what happened during the siege itself, just that it happened. I think it would be better placed in the context as a section in the wider war. Moritoriko (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per HistoryofIran's rationale.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote, it's a discussion. Simply stating “per HistoryofIran” is not a sufficient rationale for deletion. In deletion discussions, contributors are expected to provide their own reasoning. If you believe the article should be deleted, please explain why in your own words so we can have a constructive and meaningful exchange.

Also, I’ve already addressed HistoryofIran’s arguments in detail above particularly regarding the historical significance of the siege and the reliability of the sources cited. If there are no direct rebuttals to those points, then merely echoing someone else’s opinion shouldn’t carry weight in deciding the article’s fate. That’s not in line with an encyclopedic approach. BEFOR01 (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you want me to copy-paste what HistoryofIran said ? I am not going to repeat his rationale, as I said, I agree with it, end of. By the way, just to let you know, your above comments have not solved anything and I don't agree with your reasoning.You really should take a look at WP:BLUDGEON, as suggested above---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not asking you to copy and paste anything. I’m pointing out that simply saying “I agree” without addressing any specific arguments or providing independent reasoning doesn't help move the discussion forward in a meaningful or policy-aligned way.

+Do you think it's that simple? "Your comments above didn't solve anything" you say

then if you read my comments above in more detail you will understand what I mean. BEFOR01 (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're not saying anything other than "Don't bludgeon the process." I'm not trying to force anyone to accept anything. If I were, I would be trying to convince each of you one by one. Don't take this the wrong way if you have a reasonable response, please share it. I've already explained the importance of this page and my reasoning in the talk section, and you're free to review it.

Moreover, my comments are aligned with both WP:RS and WP:N principles. Of course, you're not obligated to agree with me, but in that case, please engage directly with the content of the arguments and base your criticism on clear reasoning. That’s how a healthy consensus is built. BEFOR01 (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This siege isn't even mentioned in high quality academic sources, the fact that you said above "This siege was a decisive event that directly influenced the outcome of the entire war." is baseless for the least, if so, then the Ottomans would have won that war or, at least it would have ended inconclusively. Anyway, the lack of academic sources dealing with this so-called siege makes me think that this article is not notable enough.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can check it from my latest notes. Whether it is a well-founded siege or not :) BEFOR01 (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tucker(lists sieges of Baghdad and 1821 isn't shown) and Farmanfarmaian states no siege occurred. The Cambridge History of Iran(Hambly, Gavin R. G), doesn't mention a siege, and neither does The Ottoman-Iranian borderlands: making a boundary, 1843-1914(Sabri Ates). --Kansas Bear 13:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thank you for your message. Why didn't you give the volume or the relevant page in the sources you gave?

+But no problem, I would like to help you with resources objectively.

Historian Sabri Ateş provides a detailed account in The Ottoman-Iranian Borderlands:

“In early October 1821, Dawlatshah moved from Kermanshah… Victorious, he appointed Abdullah Bey Baban and advanced to Baghdad. According to Abbas Amanat, only the formidable city walls and the pleas of Shaikh Musa Najafi stopped him from taking the city. Cevdet Pasha and Longrigg argue that Davud’s strong defense and reconciliation with Mahmud allowed the Ottomans to emerge victorious.” (According to what the book says, this must be it)

— Sabri Ateş, The Ottoman-Iranian Borderlands p.53

This is corroborated by Iranica:

“Dawlatshāh advanced deep into Iraq but was stopped by the formidable walls of Baghdad and dissuaded from taking the city by the intervention of Shaikh Musa Najafi… This campaign ended with the prince’s death from cholera at Ṭāq-e Garrā.”

— Encyclopaedia Iranica, Dawlatshāh Golden word: Baghdad

Kaveh Farrokh writes:

“Mohammad Ali Mirza conquered Sulayméniyah and following the capture of Samarra, besieged Baghdad. Davood Pasha of Baghdad dispatched an emissary to negotiate with Mohammad Ali Mirza. However, cholera had broken out among the Iranian troops, and Mohammad Ali Mirza fell victim to it, dying near the ancient Sassanian site of Ctesiphon on November, 22, 1821”

— Kaveh Farrokh, Iran at War, 1500–1988

And Graham Williamson(Farmanfarmaian) notes:

“In October 1821, after overcoming the Ottoman army in Kurdistan, the Persian army was encamped within a day’s march of Baghdad. Although the city walls were formidable and stores well provisioned, the Pasha was outnumbered and had insufficient cannon to man all the capital’s bastions. Instead, however, of storming the city or enforcing a siege, Mohammad Ali Mirza simply stayed in-situ encamped for some weeks before retiring.”

While Williamson avoids the word "siege", his description encampment right outside Baghdad for weeks after defeating Ottoman forces meets the characteristics of a failed siege attempt.

+Developments such as the preparations for the defense of the city, the triggering of the danger of siege and the withdrawal of the army indicate that there was a de facto (actual) siege.

— Graham Williamson,Farmanfarmaian The Turko-Persian War 1821–1823/War Peace In Qajar Persia p.100

Turkish historian Yılmaz Karadeniz states:

“Iran besieged Baghdad in 1821, pushed by Russia. The siege lasted eight months. Disease and losses forced Abbas Mirza to withdraw.”

— İran Tarihi (1700–1925) p.288

It would be better if you read the sources carefully before commenting on them, sir.

Note: Cambridge History of Iran (Hambly, Gavin R. G) I just can't seem to find this one but it appears instead in the Cambridge-approved Sabri Ateş

Note 2: You added Tucker but you directly searched for "Siege of Baghdad (1821)". (If it didn't come up when you searched for this and you defend this, you need to do a better research, sir.) Do you really plan to find what you're looking for this way? If you used 1821 as the golden word, you would have found what I meant. Page count: 929

Tucker: “1821 Persian forces under Muhammad Ali Mirza attacked in the direction of Baghdad, but a cholera epidemic that also took its command- er's life forced the army to withdraw. Abbas Mirza, however , enjoyed success in Armenia.”

Here BEFOR01 (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this clearly was a failed siege attempt. -- GreenC 18:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to clarify, I would also support a redirect. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Before the Erzurum Battle was deleted in the war template, weren't you in favor of deleting the page? So why did you change your mind and support redirecting this page like the others after these battles were deleted? Just asking, (this is not a denial answer.) BEFOR01 (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not change my mind, I still also support a deletion. I also think it’s pretty obvious why I stated that, and I respectfully don’t need your understanding/approval for it. Please drop the WP:BLUDGEON. My last reply to you in this thread. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need you to accept or not. I don't care if the page is deleted. I am within the rules of Wikipedia and I do not support minimizing an event that affected history. Also, don't make me repeat the same things. You say I am sabotaging the process, but I comply with WP:RS and WP:N.

If what you don't like is about the sources, I will still state it. Don't forget that there is such a thing as translation. From the beginning, I have been trying to translate a lot of foreign sources that will fit Wikipedia one by one in order to understand them. I don't get tired when I do this. I sense that you are showing a prejudice just because the language is different. Those who really want to research and learn will not even be hindered by such problems.

+If necessary, let this be my last message, and at the same time, I do not want to argue with you. As I stated above, I asked a question, but I never bow down to injustice. BEFOR01 (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. User:BEFOR01, you've probably made sufficient comments here now. Please do not Bold parts of your comments. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from the comments, Me too trying to create consensus. I don't normally use bold text, but I do when I'm quoting, and I emphasize the part of the paragraph I want to emphasize. BEFOR01 (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The Siege of Baghdad (1821)#Siege section is to the point. If it can be refurbished by inline citations then it'll have my general keep vote. Although english sources has only some 3 lines of coverage, please translate and quote non english ones. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eugen Almer

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

Declined prod. The 2 third party sources added [20] and [21] are very small 1 line mentions and not SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Romania. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not look notable and sourcing is weak. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of independent WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, extensive coverage in newspaper archives that need to be checked. Several appear to give biographies of him and one mentions he received something like the title "Master of Sport of Romania", which would arguably satisfy WP:ANYBIO as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:37, 8 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!} 23:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the WP:HEY effort by BeanieFan11. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We are not in HEY territory yet, I think. We need to locate secondary sources that significantly cover the subject and are independent and reliable. Are there any? This is not a !vote at this time, as I need to conduct my own searches. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:12, 13 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!} 22:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Romania at the 1972 Summer Olympics. The Mitteilungsblatt des Heimatverbandes Banater Berglanddeutscher is a newsletter of a German speaking community in a region of Romania, from which the page subject hails. Community newsletters like this are common in linguistic communities, and contain news and commentary in the manner of a newspaper, although they are community affairs, often with small teams and also often, these days, with support from EU funding. I am inclined to accept it as equivalent to a community newspaper. However there is, per nom., very little in these about the page subject. One calls him a 1970s top swimmer in an article about the history of swimming in Reșița although the artcle is really talking about the book, Cronica înotului sportiv res¸it¸ean, 1924 - 2004. Oameni, fapte întîmplǎri. It is a passing mention, and not clear whether they mean top swimmer in the city/region, or more probably, in Romania. The other article is a report of a meet up of swimmers from Reșița, and has a touch more. We learn that he trained for the Munich olympics under Prof. Hans Schuster and held a Balkan record for 1500m freestyle. This is not WP:SIGCOV. However, it confirms participation at Munich in 1972. A redirect is fine, but we simply do not have anything that shows significant secondary coverage in independent reliable sources. I did find a listing in a book that is not on the page, but again, it was just a listing. We have not met WP:GNG nor WP:BASIC. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have access to Arcanum results? BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The newspaper search list you have presented confuses the page subject with the apparently more notable 19th century eponymous publisher. If you believe any of those search hits show notability of this subject, let's discuss the sources and not lists of hits. Note that I already discovered much of the 19th century stuff by looking at a books search. [22] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  It doesn't look like coverage of a publisher? sports masters EUGEN ALMER MIRCEA HOHOI and ILDIKÓ ZSIZSIK GROZAVESCU Masters of Sports Eugen Almer swimming Mircea Hohoi swimming and [...] the year 1972 in your life EUGEN ALMER For me the year 1972 means [...] to a more valuable performance EUGEN ALMER Born in 1953 Master / [...] over 400 m freestyle Eugen Almer received the Reschitza 200 trophy The same [...] over 400 m freestyle Eugen Almer also achieved over 400 m freestyle [...] / mSPORT Eugen Almer achieved three records in [...] behavior had a Reșițeanul Eugen Almer Although he did not occupy a / the Junior Swimming Championships, Eugen Almer and Karl Rolik achieved a state record [...] Eugen Almer and Karl Rolik were already in the lead after the starting shot. The [...] After 100 m, both Almer and Rolik had a time [...] new state record. The victory was awarded to Eugen Almer. The 200 m. That looks like coverage of our subject. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Which comes from one source, not a search list. Can you provide the link please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Its at the very start of the search list. [23] BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Ah, yes. I discounted that one as Almanahul Sportul means "sports almanac". It is a listing of data such as results. The biographical information it carries is solicited from the subject, probably via questionnaire. Note the wording in your preview "for me the year 1972 means..." Information is not independent, and is not secondary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The title of the source doesn't matter. A media outlet can be titled "almanac" and can still have significant coverage. Getting quotes and/or information from the subject or closely-related people is a feature of sports journalism and does not automatically make sources non-independent and primary like your suggesting... BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  It's not the title alone. It is an almanac. For the subject's own provided information, see WP:IV: The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The almanac is including information that is not quotes, and it is not solely an interview. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/above. GoldRomean (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with the sources presented? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Mukhi

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

Page created immediately following my draftification, no indication of notability for this BLP, page creator has declared a CoI with the subject of the article on his user page.

I'd like to imagine there's a better venue for this than AfD, but PROD won't work because the draftification was already objected to and it's not eligible for speedy deletion, at least as far as I know. Gracen (they/them) 22:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gracen (they/them) 22:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this page should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by RULERRAD (talk • contribs)
- Please note you've declared a conflict of interest with the subject of this article on your user page. Why do you think this article should be kept? Gracen (they/them) 22:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry that has been removed. I think it deserves to be kept as it shows what the person has done and it is backed up by sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RULERRAD (talk • contribs)

For what it's worth, RULERRAD has stated on their talk page that they are the subject of the article. Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes> I have now read the guidelines and have no problem if you delete it. Sorry for the trouble. RULERRAD (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dealing with this, Jay. Do you think it would be appropriate to request WP:A7? I'm not too familiar with these processes. Gracen (they/them) 01:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Does not meet WP:BIO - sources either do not mention the subject or are WP:SPS. Page is quite promotional, and I'd suggest that it meets criteria WP:G11 or WP:A7 for speedy deletion. SunloungerFrog (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Close as delete. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Jones (military officer)

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

Not notable for her military career. Seems to be a situation in which the subject is notable only for one event (WP:BLP1E) - mainly there is a burst of news coverage from when a story focusing on her trans identity was published on the army.mil website in 2023 and caused some sort of "backlash" per Newsweek. Best, Bridget (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Military, Politics, Sexuality and gender, and Illinois. Bridget (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rachel Jones is on Wikipedia for the United States Army publicly acknowledging her transition and subsequent anger by conservatives. Classic WP:BLP1E. There is no consensus on Newsweek as a reliable source and much of the anger comes from publications like the The Daily Caller. The two Army press releases are questionable as secondary sources. The only other mention I found is a Quad City Times article about a Trans Visibility Day event, in the Quad Cities, attended by ~50 people at which she, a local resident of the Quad Cities, was one of several speakers. If all that exists after the initial outburst is a single local newspaper article, it is clear that she is resuming life as a low-profile individual. There does not appear to be an appropriate article in Category:LGBTQ military history in the United States to redirect, therefore, a delete is the most appropriate result.--Mpen320 (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG Iban14mxl (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. GoldRomean (talk) 02:30, 22 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Gracen (they/them) 22:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Langley

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

I'll admit this might be a hasty nomination, but this article is very poor quality and when I went to search for sources on Google News (the current sourcing is questionable, to put it lightly), I only found 2. These already insufficient sources fail WP:BLP1E, as far as I understand. I'm not familiar with BLP policy and frankly don't intend to be, but I didn't want to just template this article and move on. Gracen (they/them) 21:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Politicians. Gracen (they/them) 21:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: While the article would benefit from updating and copyediting, there are multiple articles on Langley establishing her notablity, for example:

female Lady Mayor, City of London; multiple articles

— ERcheck (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness. I'll take this as a lesson to be much, much more thorough before nominating something at AfD. If you're willing I'd appreciate a link to a better venue get attention on articles like this; I'm about to withdraw this so leaving it on my talk page would be appreciated. Gracen (they/them) 22:23, 15 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.

Anthony Lyza

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

Fairly unremarkable other than a few published papers on a largely niche topic (tornadoes/severe weather). By this stretch, every meteorologist (especially many professors in academia) who author papers should have Wikipedia articles, which isn't the case. United States Man (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Science. United States Man (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Hate to say it but I agree that they just don't meet the bar of notability. I think instead of making new articles on meteorologists we should, as a project, work on improving the quality of existing articles; see the dreadful state of Ted Fujita, for instance. Departure– (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also say that the USA Today source doesn't mean anything for notability in my eyes. Lyza was brought on as an expert to explain the individual study about the same topic covered at EF5 drought. This is, in my eyes, as routine as coverage gets - especially his qualifications being described by USA Today as simply lead author on the new study about the EF5 tornado drought. It would be different if the article was specifically about Lyza, or if Lyza was described as being top of his field or otherwise academically vital. Departure– (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - enough sources to justify notability.

WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Several secondary reliable sources besides academic papers reference or interview/quote Anthony Lyza and his works, including the New York Times and many other articles: [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. Clearly passes the bare minimum of WP:PROF and WP:BIO, especially since the US government even posted he is a tornado “expert”. WP:PROF says if a person passes any of the listed items, then they are notable. The first point of WP:PROF is “The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.” That seems clear, given the tons of sources discussing Lyza and his work. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Alabama, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
?. The subject has a very small number of citations in GS. What is the reason for this? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Small? This indicates he has 13 publications from 2017-2024, +1 not listed published in January 2025. So, he has at least 14 different publications that would be on GS. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The USA Today reference is the make-or-break for me here, as it does indeed show him being mentioned in major news outlets. — E_F⁵ 12:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GS gives 167 cites. Normally 1000+ cites is required for notability under WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Oh! That is what you meant by not many GS citations. Most meteorologists use respective country-based academic publication societies, rather than GS to find sources. For example, in US is the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Just by looking at the AMS-website metrics alone for the 2025 paper that Mr. Lyza was lead author on ([32]) show 7281 full text views. AMS does not keep track directly of who cited the paper, only records of downloads and views. That paper has over 7,000 views just since January 2025 (it was released January 23, 2025). Hopefully that helps. AMS contains probably 80% of the meteorologically published papers that are often cited in textbooks or by other meteorologists. This is one of those fields of science where GS is actually not the most used/useful measurement tool. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after reading the above discussion. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Model Context Protocol

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

This article consists of mostly machine-generated text, was not disclosed as being machine-generated when published by the page creator and there are multiple drafts for the same subject (Model Context Protocol, Model Context Protocol 1, Model Context Protocol (MCP)). LemurianPatriot (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. LemurianPatriot (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks for the review. It's not perfect, but still the most in-depth version compared to the competing drafts and even more comprehensive than the Chinese counterpart of the same Wikipedia article on the Model Context Protocol: https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E6%A8%A1%E5%9E%8B%E4%B8%8A%E4%B8%8B%E6%96%87%E5%8D%8F%E8%AE%AE

It has reached a critical point of notability with OpenAI's ChatGPT and Google DeepMind's Gemini supporting it. Feel free to edit it to improve it! Canp (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe parts to rework or to delete, but please keep the article, since relevant and MCP has some momentum, see e.g. InfoQ (Professional Software Development) article https://www.infoq.com/news/2025/04/fastapi-mcp/. Mywikie (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's important that Wikipedia has a page for MCP since loads of people, including me, will be searching for info and LLMs aren't trained with data new enough. 80.221.185.118 (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ability with Innovation

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

The subject is not WP:Notable SpelunkerOfMine (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched for sources using Google News, and the only article I've found is a Manchester Evening News article which gives it a trivial mention.^[1] They do come up when you google their name. But other than this Wikipedia article, most of these results are self-published or contain basic facts (e.g. contact directories LinkedIn, Facebook, etc.). This continues until the third page of Google, where the results start getting irrelevant.

The only sources that are used to support claims about AWI are AWI's website and a report by various religious and humanitarian groups which I think fails verification. There are also 3 sources which are not used to substantiate claims about AWI, Daily Kos and globalsecurity.org, both of which are noted for unreliability (WP:DAILYKOS WP:GLOBALSECURITY), and a U.S. Marine Corps report. SpelunkerOfMine (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cox, Charlotte (2015-09-02). "Monster cargo plane descends on Manchester Airport". Retrieved 2025-04-20. The flight organised by Ability with Innovation contractors drew at big crowd to Altrincham's Runway Visitor Park.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Delete. I'd say this is a fairly good case of not meeting WP:CORP. I don't see any significant coverage either, and most search hits seem to lead back to this Wikipedia article. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Ennis shooting

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

Fails WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:LASTING. No reputable coverage beyond the shooter's sentencing. Lettlre (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Firearms, and Montana. Lettlre (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bit here [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002764215588817] and there seems to be a reasonable amount of Google books hits. I’m away from the computer right now so I will look later. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell from that link what an article on "lone wolf terrorism" has to do with the Ennis shooting. And many of the Google Books hits are pinging on 'Ennis' (which appears to often be an author's last name) or the year 2003 as opposed to the shooting itself. Intothat darkness 21:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because he was a lone wolf terrorist? What are you expecting? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And yes that’s why I searched for the perp’s name with Ennis + 2003. Several hits. I will report back later. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But he wasn't a lone wolf terrorist. He was a guy who got drunk and went off the rails. And if that's the bar for inclusion, we should be adding a ton of articles focusing on shootings in Chicago alone. Intothat darkness 00:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He was an avowed white supremacist. The bar for inclusion is discussion in secondary sources. We don't make our own determinations on what is or isn't important. Whether it has discussion in secondary sources is the question. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You left out relevant discussion, but whatever. I have not seen any indication in the sources you provided that white supremacy played any role in the shooting. Intothat darkness 12:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are several pages of discussion in this book on nursing responses to crimes [33] in "The Effects of Gun Trauma on Rural Montana Healthcare Providers". Theoretically, AV sources from reliable networks are also reliable, in which case this also had an episode of the MSNBC series "caught on camera" made about it. That + book are IMO grounds for a weak keep, but also if that is not enough for people I would suggest a merge to Ennis, Montana, since it is one of the most significant things that has happened there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a Merge, but I still don't see enough to reach the Keep bar. Intothat darkness 11:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think I would go with keep. The sentence length is a decent indication of notability per WP:NEVENT. There are stronger cases but this seems OK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm not seeing any coverage past the sentencing. Intothat darkness 21:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Honestly baffling this has even been nominated. The perpetrator received the longest prison sentence ever (at the time) handed out in the state of Montana. Footage of the shootout between Davis and the police officers has been shown on numerous television programs over the years from the years 2004 all the way to more recent coverage on shows like the 2012 reboot of World's Wildest Police Videos and 16×9 (which is from 2015 onwards I believe). Plus the extra coverage mentioned by :@PARAKANYAA above (MSNBC coverage etc.). I feel pretty disappointed that you would nominate one of my articles for deletion :@Lettlre when there are far more deserving articles out there that should be getting this kind of treatment, especially given I have admired your edits and contributions to this site for some time. I am a long time editor of the site as well with over 30,000 edits and would not have written this article if I didn't believe it passed notability. I must say I am pretty shocked that one of my articles has been nominated for deletion and feel pretty attacked that you would do this given there are many articles out there that have barely had any effort put into them that aren't getting this kind of treatment. I really hope you reconsider and withdraw the nomination because this is pretty gut-wrenching to see and if it is deleted will effect whether I continue to contribute to this site. I implore you to reconsider. Kind Regards. Inexpiable (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, they still met WP:Notability. TheCheapTalker (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Inexpiable, its ridiculous that this even got nominated. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator I had poor judgement and should have looked at the sources/Google Books references before I made a nomination. I'm sorry. Lettlre (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per reasons given by Inexpiable and other users who agreed. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sewanee Tigers starting quarterbacks

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

This grouping does not have the necessary coverage to meet WP:LISTN due to a lack of coverage in reliable sources. PROD was removed by article creator with the reasoning that other schools have similar pages but that is effectively WP:OSE. Let'srun (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, American football, Lists, and Tennessee. Let'srun (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or selective merge to Sewanee Tigers football It's a Division III team, while every other college team with a quarterback list is a major D1 team. We really should not have separate pages for every conceivable list of non-notable players (and it appears several of those with articles here like Walter Barrett should also be deleted as non-notable players who did not play professionally and lack significant coverage). Reywas92^Talk 20:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sewanee today is D3, but was a major D1 school from the 1890s until the 1930s. The Sewanee-Vanderbilt rivalry was the oldest in the South, and Sewanee also had a rivalry with Auburn, and were part of the original Southeastern Conference. Perhaps the best analogy is Tulane. If the list only was for post-WW2 or something, I would agree on its removal, but this is an all-time list. Sewanee has 3 (D1) Hall of Famers: Henry D. Phillips, Diddy Seibels, and Frank Juhan. Ormond Simkins should have been a fourth. Barrett was All-Southern, i. e. according to some (Heisman and Donahue) the best QB in the South, for a Sewanee team that suffered a single loss, in its rivalry game thanks to the greatest play Grantland Rice saw in his life. Easily a handful of notable QBs, which seems to justify a navbox. Cake (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I get that Sewanee was a D1 school until the 1930s, but the content of this list has a whole raft of problems with WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:NCOLLATH. nf utvol (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Copake Mitsubishi MU-2 crash

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

Available information suggests this is a WP:ROTM general aviation accident stemming from tragically common circumstances (an amateur pilot performing a instrument landing system approach close to minimums in a fast airplane), and as such, it fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT, in particular WP:EVENTCRIT #4. It is possible that WP:LASTING effects or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE will justify a standalone article, but at this point, I think that the article was created WP:TOOSOON. ~~I suggest that it be merged with~~ The accident can be adequately summarized in a paragraph at Columbia County Airport, the intended destination of the flight.

Full disclosure: I previously proposed a merge with Westchester County Airport by mistake, and I had that proposal closed administratively so I could propose the correct target. Carguychris (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there was a video posted on YouTube with over nearly 50,000 views. (Video) Bloxzge 025 (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube views alone do not establish notability. Carguychris (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know but it is going viral. I'm not saying that it should make the article stay but it is something to note. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No objection to this being merged (this seems like a WP:NOTNEWS situation) but if you are proposing a merger outright please use WP:PM instead of AfD. Often AfDs turn to mergers as an AtD but we do not need to start merger conversations here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified the language to better reflect my intent. I did not mean to imply a full blown page merge. Carguychris (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Columbia per Carguychris' bottom argument. Borgenland (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•Merge please note that Karenna Groff, 2022 NCAA Woman of The Year was on board this plane. Create article on Karenna Groff and merge the accident into her death.Article mentioning Groff here lolzer3k (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that NCAA WotY confers notability - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Columbia County Airport, where this accident can be summarized. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a one sentence summary at Mitsubishi MU-2 § Incidents and accidents which could be expanded slightly. I guess that's a merge, though it would have to be a very selective one as this article has far too much detail for a run-of-the-mill general aviation crash. While the crash did occur during a missed approach to Columbia County Airport, the crash site is 10 miles from the airport, which is stretching things a bit for a mention there. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in my opinion and per WP:AIRCRASH, the crash doesn't belong on the Mitsubishi MU-2 page unless it is established that Karenna Groff is Wikinotable, and I concur with The Bushranger that the NCAA WotY award does not confer notability, as evidenced by the number of redlinked recipients on the list page. On the other hand, it's fairly common for fatal accidents to be listed on airport pages if the accident aircraft was on an ILS approach, even if the actual crash occurred miles from the airport. Carguychris (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I see a short but sufficient summary has already been added to the destination airport article, so make my !vote a merge there. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jauhari Johar

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

Declined twice at WP:AFC but moved to mainspace by articles subject. Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines. Theroadislong (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and Malaysia. Theroadislong (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Academy Blackheath

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article on a school, and added another piece of local news coverage about its establishment. I can find very little non-primary coverage, however, and don't think it meets WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. It was established in 2018, so it may be WP:TOOSOON for it to have demonstrated notability.

Redirect to its multi-academy trust, Leigh Academies Trust, is a possibility, but I didn't want to go ahead and do this without consulting the community, partly because the Leigh Academy Blackheath article is well-developed for what sources there are, and partly because I'm not entirely convinced that the trust itself is notable (mostly primary sources or local coverage in that article too) - so didn't want to redirect from one article with weak notability to another. Tacyarg (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and United Kingdom. Tacyarg (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leigh Academies Trust. I agree with the nom. that I am not seeing what makes this a notable school. There is a reasonable amount of information on the page, although this is largely just put together from primary sources regarding or reporting its construction. That information could be pared back a bit, but actually would be useful in this article were the school shown to be notable for some other reason. It is a new school, and there is good reason to believe the situation will change at some point, so I would be unhappy with a result that saw the page history hidden by deletion, but the redirect will preserve what is here until such a time as notability is established. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, as with all secondary schools in the United Kingdom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarismcheck.org

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

This is a bit better than the version in draft that I speedied (and I suspect there's admins who'd push the button if I slapped a {{db-g11}} on it again) but I can't find any evidence it meets our inclusion guidelines. First ref has no mention of the subject at all; second is a two-sentence passing mention that says the author doesn't know a thing about it; fourth isn't on the web but predates the site by six years; fifth also isn't on the web but is a doctoral dissertation. The third, from Strategy First International College (which doesn't seem to have an English web presence to speak of outside of YouTube), is the closest to usable, but it's still shallow. I can't find anything better - a lot of blog posts and trivial feature comparisons and a strong impression of a recent astroturfing campaign, which this article is probably part of. —Cryptic 19:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Websites, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found the following two academic articles, both published in peer-reviewed education journals, which analyze the efficacy of the plagiarism checker relatively in detail: 1 2. Agree with nominator that many of the news sources are blog post-esque, "list of best plagiarism checker" type articles which are not allowed per WP:NCORP but I think these two articles together are sufficient. The article does need work though, as it currently comes across quite promotional, so I could also be sympathetic to draftifying it until someone can rework it. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 20:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning draftify. I don't think the article in its current form is acceptable, but the two academic articles found by @Flipandflopped just above may be enough to write a more concise article on Plagiarismcheck.org. However, it needs a fundamental rewrite and a closer look at the two academic articles to make sure that they review the product in a way that can be integrated into an article. Pichpich (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify I declined this article in the AfC queue a week ago before it was g11'd. Little improvement have been made in terms of sourcing and promotional tone. The creator of this article (@Robbydillallo) moved the draft into mainspace without review and had not responded to COI inquiries on their talk page, raising questions about WP:UPE. The one of the academic articles FlipandFlopped cied test 14 different tools, and give little information about this tool in detail. The other is more subtantial, but still only gives minimal coverage.

Ironically, for an academic honesty tool, this article seems to be written with a help of an AI. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! These are great advice, well I have tried to make it better. The studies i have mentioned are quite about the subject. I am also sad that you mention that I used AI. This is not honest. That is why such tools as Plagiarismcheck and Integrito are important. I will rewrite according to your comments, please, don't delete it. I will submit for review too. I was confised about moving it to mainspace Robbydillallo (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GoSun Inc.

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

Originally AI generated with a bunch of fake sources. When the nonexistent sources, the unsupported information, and a whole lot of empty promotional fluff had been taken out, what remains is a stub article with a few sources mentioning products manufactured by the company, but nothing to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. bonadea contributions talk 18:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ohio. bonadea contributions talk 18:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:SIGCOV. Polygnotus (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Procyon117 (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like WP:UPE, but sources meeting WP:ORGCRIT exist in various publications. There are numerous entries in Google Books as well but I did not go through them all. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaye Tuckerman

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

Non-notable. AI generated and at least some refs are fake. Polygnotus (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and can we just find some way to speedy these. Btw Polygnotus thanks for the heads up re. ANI, although the guy was blocked by the time I got there :) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Theatre, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Fails WP:GNG and doesn't meet WP:NACTOR as there is only one notable role with some reviews. Redirect to Mamma Mia! (musical)#productions. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Aram

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

Not finding anything like enough in the article or elsewhere to pass WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. Edwardx (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Armenia, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears the article was published today. Perhaps it isn't ready for the main namespace, however, it appears the creator of the article is still WP:BUILDing it. This deletion request may be pre-mature as the article could been moved back into a draft. If the creator can't provide sufficient WP:N, then I'd switch my vote to delete. Archives908 (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it might appear premature. It cropped up on my watchlist as I had had it speedily deleted before. The creator did not return to expand beyond their initial edit. The WP:BEFORE search was clear cut with regard to lack of notability. Edwardx (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed that as well. It was speedy deleted on two grounds: G11 - unambiguous advertising or promotion, and also A7 - no credible indication of importance. Netherzone (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Not finding any reliable sourcing to show notability on the web. Just links out to his home products. Source table for existing sources below. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.palmbeachillustrated.com/holiday-soiree-by-design/	Palm Beach Illustrated	puff piece about a dinner party	✘ No
https://bocaratonobserver.com/culture/features/by-design/	Boca Raton Observer	churnalism / lifestyle article	✘ No
https://auroraprize.com/en/michael-aram-wolohojian		interview	✘ No
https://armenianweekly.com/2015/10/22/a-new-sculpture/	Armenian Weekly is an English-language newspaper belonging to the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF)	interesting article about sculpture Aram created	? Unknown
https://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/story/lifestyle/2024/07/09/palm-beach-artist-michael-aram-creates-nature-inspired-pieces-for-the-home/74161437007/	Palm Beach Daily News	churnalism / puffery	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete - I removed the claim in the article that he had a retrospective at the Metropolitan Museum because it could not be verified on the Met Museum website, nor was there any evidence of him being in the Met's collection. It seems that he has produced commercial utilitarian and home-decorating objects that are well-crafted and that have been sold in several museum shops and stores, but this is not the same as showing at a museum, nor having a show at a museum or being in their collection. @WomenArtistUpdates: has put together a well-researched source analysis that shows that this artist does not meet WP criteria for WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. The BEFORE search I performed did not find anything else that could support notability. Netherzone (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalypso Nicolaïdis

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

She ought to be notable but a BEFORE search is only returning material BY her, not ABOUT her. Tagged for a lack of sources for 8 years already. Cabayi (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, France, and Greece. Cabayi (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's well-known in my discipline of International Relations, and her works have over 10,000 citations on Scholar. I would say it's not uncommon that academics have plenty of output and notability in their field without much coverage about them as a person. Completely agree that the article needs more sourcing, of course - but that feels like a better avenue than deletion.

— Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 22:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think her citation record is good enough for WP:PROF#C1, but I also found quite a few published reviews, of one coauthored book (The Greco-German Affair in the Euro Crisis, [34]) and several co-edited volumes (The Greek Paradox, [35], [36]; European Stories, [37], [38], [39]; The Federal Vision, [40], [41]; Echoes of Empire, [42], [43]; Strategic Trends in Services, [44]; In the Long Shadow of Europe, [45]). Because they are mostly not authored books I think this only makes a weak case for WP:AUTHOR but there are enough of them to make the case. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article violate copy right rules. https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Kalypso+Nicola%C3%AFdis&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GEMS Founders School Dubai

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

Mainly referenced with primary sources. Non-notable private school, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Gheus (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World Homeopathy Day

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

There's no independent WP:RS WP:SIGCOV for this promotional made-up observance day, which thus fails WP:GNG. The sources in the page are all unbylined content of dubious reliability per WP:NEWSORGINDIA ([46], [47], [48]), or else credulous articles that push the validity of homeopathy ([49], [50]). I already deleted a section claiming "promising results" from homeopathy but sourced to the low-quality sources above, which is unacceptable for this subject matter per WP:MEDRS. The final source is NationalToday.com, a website created by a marketing agency that publishes lists of observance days listed and paid for by brands/advertisers. Coverage found in a BEFORE search is similarly unbylined or WP:CHURNALISM by SEO-driven low-quality news sources with no independent reporting on this day as a concept. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Medicine. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable scam event covered by unreliable sources. Reywas92^Talk 19:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see sources based on news releases, all saying almost exactly the same thing. Nothing else. Content is also lacking in the article: three sentences, each of which states the same thing, just with slightly different wording. Not useful for an encyclopedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A big slathering of NEWSORGINDIA combined with very poor writing ('to celebrate the birth anniversary of Homeopathy founder...Dr. Hahnemann'?! Should be 'to honor the birthday of Dr. Hahnemann, who created the concept of homeopathy', and 'on year 2005'); a cite to the subject's article should be added, but I certainly wouldn't redirect or merge anything else here. Nathannah • 📮 23:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Asteramellus (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retain:This is a worldwide day.Editing in Wikepedia for few years,I found many articles are stub for years and are not notable too which have found place here. Wikipedia is not a place to retain or delete by voting. I request the reviewer to retain it considering its importance due to the Doctor in whose honour it was started and for the practice which has reputation.Gardenkur

Comment As said above I have no objection to mention of it in the subject's article, but it's otherwise unnotable as a holiday of its own. Nathannah • 📮 20:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My Green Doctor

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

Not notable. My Green Doctor provides free brochures, posters, and other teaching tools to help helps share wise choices with patients and families. The name is mentioned often, but usually in the context of marijuana. Bunch of press releases, sponsored content, a blog or two. Some of the references are fake because it is AI generated. Polygnotus (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Education, Medicine, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...and also delete. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A lot of mentions, but nothing meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Table Space

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

This article about an Indian coworking provider fails WP:NCORP. The coverage consists of routine WP:ORGTRIV coverage related to capital raises, expansion of the business, etc. ([51], [52], [53]), much of it unbylined and thus questionable per WP:NEWSORGINDIA ([54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]. There's also some coverage of the death of its founder ([60], [61]) that constitutes WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. I didn't find anything qualifying in my BEFORE search and there's no obvious AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Karnataka. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It would be interesting to see if anyone can produce something that falls within WP:ORGCRIT as the only thing I see is mentions, routine announcements, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Diban clashes

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Insignificant clashes article, which doesn't have content that can be expanded. Can be merged to Rojava–Islamist conflict. Ecrusized (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support since this article looks to just be about a rather small skirmish between some tribal gunmen and the SDF, but I think its info should be merged into the Eastern Syria Insurgency article instead; the article on them doesn't mention them as being explicitly Islamist, and they're already in the article's infobox. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For me it should be linked with Deir ez-Zor clashes (2023) because they were not only in 2023 but also in 2024 because Eastern Syria Insurgency is only for rebels, ISIS and Baathist remnants against the Syrian democratic forces. 2800:200:F4D0:97B:EC4D:94C4:86A5:E42B (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that the 2023 Deir ez-Zor clashes looks like it's about a specific wave of clashes against the SDF in August and September 2023, so idk if the Diban Clashes' info should be moved there. However, you are right in that the Eastern Syria Insurgency article doesn't focus on the tribal militia. Maybe there could be a new article created specifically about tribal militias attacking the SDF (e.g. Tribal Insurgency in Eastern Syria), and the Diban Clashes' info could be merged there? Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, better, because there are many waves of attacks from the Tribal forces and an article where they are all combined is good. Farcazo (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Create a Draft (Draft:Arab Tribal insurgency in Eastern Syria) if you want you can help move things from here to there and add Farcazo (talk) 01:58, 22 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025 Daraa clashes

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

Insignificant clashes article which gives little to no information to the readers. WP:NOTNEWS. Can be merged to Western Syria clashes (December 2024–present). Ecrusized (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support since the article's small (the timeline only has 3 small sentences), but idk if it should merged into the Western Syria Clashes article because that's specifically about Latakia/Tartus and western Homs/Hama (though it could just be renamed to something like Assadist insurgency).

I was gonna propose making a Mohsen al-Haymed article, but he's only been reported on in 3 separate months - April 2024, January 2025, and March 2025, which might not be enough coverage for a separate article.

(If this article isn't deleted, it should be renamed to something like 2025 al-Sanamayn Clashes or al-Sanamayn Clashes (2024-2025)) Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the info to Western Syria clashes (December 2024–present) wouldn't make sense, as Daraa is in southern Syria. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Low level of Oppostition It should remain in place until the Western Syria clashes (December 2024-present) page issue is resolved Because only the title applies to the Western Syria Farcazo (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The scope of this article fits better within Western Syria clashes (December 2024-present), yet obviously these clashes did not take place in western Syria. Building off of this, there's significant discussion on the name of the article, and at the current moment it seems that the general consensus leans towards changing the title to a more inclusive name, but disagreement exists on what to change the name too. It might be a good idea to extend this AFD discussion until ongoing discussion on the other article is resolved. Castroonthemoon (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Grieves

AfDs for this article:

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

This biography lacks significant coverage in secondary sources. I found this source but unfortunately it is just a mention which is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Engineering. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida, Michigan, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources. Keep - agreeing with Ldm1954 that he meets WP:NPROF. That said, the article is quite poor. I will at least add a few of his most highly cited resources to it. I considered that he might meet NAUTH but can find no reviews of his books, not even user reviews on Amazon or Goodreads. The article was tagged for possible paid editing (Oct 2024), and the article creator removed that template a few days later, which is about as close as you can get to trying to hide the fact that you are a paid editor. The editor also removed a notability tag. This does not bode well. Lamona (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~Speedy Keep much to my surprise, he passes WP:NPROF based upon his GScholar profile. With one paper having > 4k cites, another 3k cites we cannot ignore his impact in the field. I added his GS profile to the lead (perhaps not the best place). I also tried to add authority control but probably did that wrong.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there was a prior AfD

This project page was nominated for deletion on June 2, 2022. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

where his role in the topic of digital twins and citations was the deciding factor. If you check the history there has been some edit warring and, perhaps, COI editing which is why the current page is weak. It looks like a detailed WP:Before was not done with this AfD. Based upon my analysis and the prior history I have changed my vote to Speedy Keep.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, this article was created on October, 2024. I don't know how to track down how this happened but there is a 2-year gap between that speedy keep and recreation of the article. Lamona (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I don't know what happened. There must have been some paid/COI/copyright that led to a CSD or similar. I will ask for admin help. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Posted to the help desk. That may be the best place, hopefully it will end up getting done. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An article at this title was created in June 2022 by a sock, and G5'd soon after. Later in the year it was recreated by another sock of the same blocked user, moved by the author to a different title (Michael William Grieves), and G5'd from there; the redir left behind was then G8'd -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And also Michael W. Grieves, with a whole web of (re)creating, moving, and cut'n'paste-moving among various names in mainspace and draftspace, with suspected UPE involved. DMacks (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks and @DoubleGrazing: thanks, certainly a very dodgy history with similar info at WP:AN#Admin help recreating history. While I don't know this area, if there is any question of sock authoring of the current version I am OK if we break the rules and put me down as the article creator, since I think notability is clear. Maybe @Lamona will share editorship, or he can be the source if that works better, as he has put more effort into recent improvements. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As shown above, NPROF is clearly met. While there seem to have been significant shenanigans with COI in the past, the primary author of this version of the article in October 2024 denied a COI (User_talk:Boltor#October_2024) and they are an established user, not a SPE. Taking care due to the history of COI, and due to a relative paucity of independent sources, our best possible article may be pretty limited at this time, but that is an editorial issue not a question of deletion. Martinp (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edílson (footballer, born 1993)

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

Contested PROD. This played allegedly acted for several important Brazilian football teams, but he doesn't have any signal of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sportspeople, and Brazil. Svartner (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Signal of SIGCOV? Anyway, he played for some of the big Brazilian clubs according to the article. But unless someone fixes up the article (finds the right sources) I don't have a problem with it being deleted. Govvy (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked for sources more than once here and found nothing. Svartner (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only see one of the bigger Brazilian clubs, Palmeiras, and his playing time there was limited to 11 minutes in the Paulista. Geschichte (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just a single appearance in 2013 [62]. Svartner (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:16, 16 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ TheRas IsBack! 15:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhuja

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

Suggesting to merge with Bombay mix, they seem like they're basically the same thing and the article even states Bombay Mix is another name for this in Britain. TheRas IsBack! 15:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I fat fingered this one. I'll add a merge tag. TheRas IsBack! 15:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 15 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.

Omar Albertto

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

Fails GNG. I can't find any coverage except for 1988 article in LA Times. Article is completely promotional and was created by banned user. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 20:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 20:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Panama. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. While most of the sources (both in the article and in a quick google search) are pretty low quality, I've found a couple that I think are usable for notability purposes. Mr Feel Good Academy of Fashion Arts and Sciences Ageist, and LA Style. He was also quoted in a 1994 issue of Cosmopolitan[63] but I am not sure if that article provided substantial coverage. His heyday as an agent appears to have been in pre- and early internet days so more sources may be available offline. Article should be trimmed and rewritten to avoid promotion and unsourced detail but I think there is some substance behind the glitz. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:01, 30 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!} 23:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm not knowledgeable about fashion, but a quick online search shows a few different profiles that indicate notability as Eluchil404 listed. Article does need a significant rewrite to meet quality standards though.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really encylopedic. Article here since 2016. With such poor sourcing after this time, it means not even editors seem to care about the subject. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See WP:SURMOUNTABLE and WP:NOEFFORT in particular - deletion is a question of subject notability, not article quality. Anerdw (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find any source that can be suitable for this article, just promotional content and profiles 201.225.3.154 (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage. Iban14mxl (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In its current form, the article is a borderline WP:G11. Taking on board the sources, I don't think there's enough to blow up and start over. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:43, 15 April 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, Owen× ☎ 14:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article reads as if it was made by an AI. Very biased and poorly sourced

Thegoofhere (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, the article literally misspells Alberto's name Thegoofhere (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. The sources I list in my comment above show that the, unusual, spelling Albertto is correct. Even if you find the sources insufficient to support notability, you should read them before opining on an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the IMDB page and assumed that's how his name was spelt. Sorry. Thegoofhere (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spacing Guild

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks any reliable sourcing, and is almost entirely a plot summary. With the exception of this article (https://www.inverse.com/entertainment/dune-foundation-spacers-guild-navigators-spice), all sources I found were low-quality Valnet sources. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, Film, and Popular culture. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Insect Comment Some sources were brought up in the last AfD just three months ago that resulted in a Keep consensus. I haven't reviewed them myself, but just making you aware in case you haven't seen them. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that AfD until after I had opened this one, but even with the sources brought up I still believe the article isn't notable. 2 of them are Valnet churnalism, and the geopolitical article barely mentions the guild. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Looks like there is discussion of it in academia. I agree with Industrial Insect that the article as it stands now is mostly a plot summary in the context of the Dune universe (and therefore the content is more suitable for a fandom wiki). TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Industrial Insect:
- a) Lacks any reliable sourcing: What about the 16-page-chapter in The Science of Dune listed in the article's references?
- b) What about WP:6MONTHS?
- c) Did you check out the sources already listed at the top of the Talk page? If you've overlooked both them and the old AfDs, that seems a lot like step B.4 of WP:BEFORE has been skipped. All those steps are there for a reason, to avoid wasting editors' time. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a) I haven't read it. Seems fine, but one source isn't enough to carry an entire article

b) I accept full responsibility for that. I was completely unaware of the previous AfD, and I failed to check the edit history.

c) Duneinfo is a fansite and as such is not appropriate for establishing notability. I can't comment on "Paul's Empire: Imperialism and Assemblage Theory in Frank Herbert's Dune" yet because the link gives me a 404, but based on the previous AfD it looks like a plot summary. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here or here would be alternative links. Daranios (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed through the article, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but it seems like the article doesn't provide much analysis on the Guild itself. It's only really mentioned during the plot summarization. It's definitely a good article, but it's not particularly useful as a source here. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we are getting into details here, but my 2 cents here: Not sure if the importance of the Spacing Guild and its bureaucratic structure as the real power in the empire is still plot summary or already analysis. But like below, brief but non-trivial analysis of the Spacing Guild being an expression for capitalism: "Moreover, the capitalistic nature of the spice trade and the Spacing Guild are ripe for an analysis based upon the issues of capitalism and globalization discussed in Empire." Would be interesting if someone followed up on Rudd's suggestion of analysis. Google Scholar shows two hits among the six citations of Rudd's paper, both paywalled. There's some preview here, e.g. p 57 (more on pages 20, 72, 94, but no preview). Daranios (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just collecting, "Epic World-Building: Names and Cultures in Dune" has brief but non-trivial analysis. Daranios (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also skimmed, (take with a dose of salt), there is one sentence of analysis where the author compares the Guild to those that existed during medieval Europe. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I've meant, too, and how that image feeds back into the atmosphere/perception of the Dune universe. Daranios (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another very relevant web article, not Valnet this time: Denis Villeneuve's Dune Movies Never Got These Big Villains From the Books Right. Daranios (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collider is actually owned by Valnet. They acquired it in 2020. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drat, I did not know that. In fact, I though I remembered it being list among reliable sources, but can't find that now. At least it was considered rather reliable in one discussion in 2021. In case you happen to have something more tangible policywise, please let me know, but it's only a sidenote here anyway. Daranios (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios A recent consensus at Wikipedia:FILM determined a new Valnet consensus which deprecated the usability of opinion pieces, which states that they should be avoided. Granted the Wikipedia:VG consensus still says they can be used so long as they don't get counted toward notability, but I do hope it clarifies things a bit Valnet-wise, especially in Collider's case, as WP:FILM specifies Collider outright among the listed sources. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books search is pretty fruitful. Early hits are A Dune Companion, which has an entry dedicated to the Spacing Guild; with plot summary but still relevant with regard to notability. The Worlds of Dune has a long chapter titled "The Spacing Guild"; while the limited parts I can see mostly talk about other topics, p. 169 makes the point that the Spacing Guild is the most science-fiction-y element in Herbert's Dune. And especially relevant non-plot analysis in Sun Tzu in Space, p. 40-41, of the Spacing Guild's role as a non-governmental institution of power with comparison to the British East India Company, and a bit more on p. 158. Daranios (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Dune Companion is basically just a Dune encyclopedia. The Worlds of Dune seems good though. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sigh. This topic is clearly notable, and it's somewhat irksome that this article has been AfDed again after three months. But yes, we've been lazy about making improvements. Let me see what I can do ASAP.— TAnthony^Talk 04:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No adequate BEFORE conducted, was found notable in clear consensus 3m ago, and WP:NOTCLEANUP unquestionably applies. Furthermore, an all-plot summary in an independent RS is a transformative secondary source and useful for establishing notability even if our final article shouldn't be all plot. Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- From a WP:WHYN perspective it is to some extent a moot point whether sources that solely summarize in-universe information (whether that's a plot summary, character biography, or something different) count towards notability. Articles must not consist solely of in-universe information (WP:NOTPLOT, WP:WAF), so we need sources that cover real-world information regardless. The essay WP:ALLPLOT makes both the point that Plot summaries necessarily involve selecting which elements of a fictional work are important enough to include in the summary and are thus secondary, rather than primary, sources. and a Wikipedia article based on such sources would need to incorporate other elements to be an optimal encyclopedia article (though the latter statement is too weak—an article that relies entirely on such sources is not just not "optimal", it is a WP:NOT violation and thus not even acceptable). TompaDompa (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even when discounting Valnet sources there is easily enough coverage by secondary sources for a full article with referenced plot summary and analysis. The fact that this is not yet in place is no grounds for deletion in accordance with WP:ARTN and WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Rather, solving these problems, possibly including some trimming of the current plot summary, can be done by normal editing. Our time would be better spent on that rather than discussing deletion. Daranios (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others, there is significant and valid discussion of the Spacing Guild as a major plot element. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article currently has too much plot summary and not enough analysis, but sources to improve it do exist, and are cited in the article. Needs editing, not deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Komi Dje

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

No notability separate from Molodtsov alphabet, no content that isn't already covered in Komi alphabets. Janhrach (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Russia. Janhrach (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Komi alphabets#Molodtsov alphabet as an WP:ATD. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KHAD-KGB campaign in Pakistan

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

Non-notable subject. The article is full of exceptional claims and WP:OR. The sources are not supporting the subject, thus there is also a crisis over WP:V. >>> Extorc.talk 14:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot think of this subject to be anything more than a non-notable conspiracy theory. Agletarang (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete WP:SYNTH ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Life of Luxury

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

I declined an A7 tag as I found one source, but that's all I could find. The article is cited entirely to the YouTube channel, and there are hardly any independent sources that show it's worthy of an encyclopedia article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I nominated it for speedy because the article had no independent sources, made no actual claim to notability, and the only source I could find was a local one-off report from when it had just started in 2019. Fram (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the lack of reliable secondary sources make this more appropriate for something like Fandom, rather than Wikipedia. This is a Battle for Dream Island sort of situation where the YouTube channel is very popular, but hardly any reliable secondary sources cover it.

There is an unrelated 2003 movie also called "Life of Luxury" (as mentioned at "List of programs broadcast by TV3 in Norway"), but that topic doesn't seem notable enough for a separate article, either. ApexParagon (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source I could find is this local news coverage of a 2019 video, which is probably what Fram is referring to above. In the absence of other secondary references, that single news mention is not enough to WP:GNG. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 18:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The local news source posted by Flipandflopped does not constitute significant coverage; it's not even close. This link (currently used as a reference in the article) is significant coverage, though I'm not sure how reliable gbtimes.com is considered to be. (For what it's worth, Linksearch confirms that there are over 250 links to GBTimes from Wikipedia) A more fundamental problem is that it appears to me like the YouTube channel discussed in the GBTimes article is different from the YouTube channel discussed in the Wikipedia article. I can't find much beyond that, so I think the subject falls short of meeting WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The GBTimes article is very likely AI-generated. I can't find any other popular channel called "Life of Luxury" besides the one described in the Wikipedia article, let alone one that has the content the GBTimes article is describing. And the general style of writing in the GBTimes article stinks of AI.

Definitely feels like they asked ChatGPT "Write an essay debating if the YouTube channel Life of Luxury's videos are real", and the AI interpreted that as a channel for videos of ACTUAL luxurious things.

(I'm a bit concerned that this website that AI-generates articles has been used for a source over 200 times... but that's for another discussion.) ApexParagon (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have started a discussion on the Reliable Sources noticeboard about this. ApexParagon (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG jolielover♥talk 02:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of the most common U.S. place names

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

Majority of this is OR; I just don't see this 200s-era mega list actually meeting WP:NLIST. E_F⁵ 13:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalent: What confuses me is how this article hasn't been deleted sooner, it does not really fit in with Wikipedia but if it has persisted 18+ years then maybe there is something I'm missing. SamuelNelsonGISP (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yes a lot of articles stay for a long time even though they shouldn't have been here in the first place. NavjotSR (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it needs to be deleted. I can see a potential version of this page where each entry contains additional context for why the name has popped up in so many places (i.e. history and origin of the name, notable foundings, etc.)

ThanatosApprentice (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish place names in other countries

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

All but one entry is uncited. This fails WP:NLIST; we really need to crack down on these old, uncited naming-related lists. E_F⁵ 13:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, list is based on an arbitrary, non-defining and trivial characteristic. Speaking to the OP's concern about a lack of citations, place name origins are often historically disputed, obscure, based on misunderstandings or poor Anglicization (e.g., Canadian, Texas), or even arbitrary (e.g., numerous American communities renamed by the U.S. Postal Service to avoid duplication). And what if the community is named after a person, geographical feature, or other community with a name similar to an Irish place? All of these factors may cast doubt on whether some entries are legitimately "Irish". Carguychris (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOPAGE and WP:NLIST. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of irregularly spelt places in the United Kingdom

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

Per the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of irregularly spelled places in the United States, article is near-identical. E_F⁵ 13:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTHOW and WP:OR jolielover♥talk 15:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified of this discussion because List of places in the United Kingdom with counterintuitive pronunciations was merged back into List of irregularly spelt places in the United Kingdom after this 6 February 2022 discussion. I "created" the page on 27 July 2014, by splitting it from List of places in the United Kingdom and Ireland with counterintuitive pronunciations, per Talk:List of places in the United Kingdom and Ireland with counterintuitive pronunciations#Post-expand include size limit exceeded. The three pages, after the 3-way split, originally were titled:

@ 05:14, 12 May 2020 Starbeam2 moved List of places in the United Kingdom and Ireland with counterintuitive pronunciations to List of places in the United Kingdom with counterintuitive pronunciations (Ireland is a separate country and i've moved the Republic of Ireland names to a separate article.)

@ 17:10, 22 May 2020 Starbeam2 moved List of places in England with counterintuitive pronunciations to English places spelled irregularly

@ 13:58, 23 May 2020 Nardog moved English places spelled irregularly to List of irregularly spelled places in England (WP:NCLIST; WP:CONSISTENT with List of places in England, etc.)

@ 10:39, 16 September 2020 Chocolateediter moved List of irregularly spelled places in England to List of irregularly spelt places in England (British English not American English). wikt:spelt.

@ 23:08, 22 December 2020 Starbeam2 moved List of irregularly spelt places in England to List of irregularly spelt places in the United Kingdom (adding the few non-England placenames)

Hah. The issue that caused me to split the article seems to have gone away, probably because the template(s) causing the problem have since been made more efficient by being rewritten to use Lua modules.

Ireland was split from the UK and Ireland, and moved to List of irregularly spelled English names#Ireland. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of irregularly spelled English names. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the usual "WP:SHORTCUT" reasons, this has been an unstable mess, leading to the wasting of multiple editors' time, splitting and re-merging, and moving pages around between the UK and Ireland, and confusion about the distinction between irregular pronunciations and irregular spellings. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with the irregularly spelled names, I'm not sure how one can define irregular spellings in english. The mix of germanic and latin (french) influences makes irregularity in spelling the norm. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Anonrfjwhuikdzz, and even if you could define irregular spelling, this seems like a trivial and non-defining characteristic that violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Carguychris (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Carguychris. Worgisbor (congregate) 16:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article is also full of original research. Azuredivay (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and on the basis of the outcome of the two other similar aticles mentioned, which were deleted at AfD. This is largely OR and POV. Ajf773 (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely useless and undefinable, per nom and above. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 22:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tian Boothe

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

Not a notable person. A lot of the sources are press releases and blogs, and the reliability of AllHipHop, although listed on WP:A/S based on one comment in 2008, has been questioned multiple times.[64][65][66] The article creator appears to have a history of creating articles with COI and paid editing issues. Frost 13:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, and Jamaica. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Svartner (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom ,Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carter-Newton House

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

Article seems to function as an extended family history related to the Carter-Newton House, rather than an encyclopedic entry about a notable subject. It suffers from a near-complete lack of reliable, independent sources, making the vast majority of its content unverifiable (WP:V) and potentially original research (WP:OR) by a user whose name implies a relation to the owners. Article fails to establish the notability (WP:N) of the house, appearing more like a genealogical record (WP:NOTGENEALOGY). — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 13:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree it’s written like a poor novella, and is very weakly-sourced. But an 1840s house in the US is likely notable, and there is an indication it’s on the National Register. KJP1 (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 13:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ge with dot above

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

Presumably does not pass WP:GNG. Janhrach (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Middle East, and Russia. Janhrach (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ge (Cyrillic). I don't think it merits its own article, but given that "Г̇" is part of the Cyrillic script and a variation of the basic "Г", I think its existence could be briefly mentioned there. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 18:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ge (Cyrillic) per Flip^and and WP:ATD. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of the repression of the Catalan language

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

The article is a list which constitutes original research and has an inherently biased point of view which is impossible to contextualise as a list-type article.

It is a partial translation of this article in the Catalan Wikipedia, which has only been translated until 1939. The article is essentially a list of events relating to the Catalan language which editors of the Catalan wikipedia feel constitute "repression", ordered chronologically. The list takes an inherently Catalan nationalist perspective, as it begins from the premise that Catalan should be the dominant language of the regions of Catalonia, Valencia, Northern Catalonia, Franja de Aragón, the Balearic Islands and El Carxe. This leaves no room for discussion of other perspectives and creates an article with an inbuilt POV.

The list is also WP:OR, as it synthesises many sources which (usually but not always) relate to language policy in Spain and France, and assemble the events described into a chronology which is present in none of them. This is particularly evident in the post-war sections of the text, which have yet to be translated, but is still a problem in the text as found here.

An article which discusses the history of state action to minoritise Catalan would be welcome, but it needs to be presented in a neutral way and be discursive, rather than presented as a chronological list of selective facts. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Politics, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. This topic is covered more neutrally and with more context in Anti-Catalan sentiment. Perhaps there could be a standalone article for language-specific oppression but a list-based timeline would not be the best way to convey the topic either way imo. Zzz plant (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK. Catalan is not only still alive, its third place and small font at all the signs in Catalonia. Bearian (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At Barcelona airport when I was there in 2017, the signs were Catalan / English / Castilian! —Tamfang (talk) 01:02, 22 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/procedural keep‎. (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 16:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Caribbean

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

I propose that this article be deleted in its entirety for the following reasons:

1. No legal or political entity called “Dutch Caribbean” exists. The term is an informal geographic expression with no basis in international or Kingdom law. There is no official governing body or jurisdiction under this name.

2. Misrepresents the constitutional reality of the six territories. Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten are autonomous countries within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba are special municipalities of the Netherlands. These islands do not share a government, constitution, or legal framework.

3. Violates Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality and verifiability. The article presents “Dutch Caribbean” as if it were a real entity, but provides no legal sources or primary references to support that framing. This misleads readers and contradicts Wikipedia’s standards.

4. The article has real-world consequences. It undermines the recognition of Curaçao and other countries as independent legal entities, causing confusion in international systems and reinforcing outdated colonial narratives.

5. The term should not be used at all. The article is built on a false premise. “Dutch Caribbean” inaccurately groups legally distinct and autonomous countries with Dutch special municipalities, creating a misleading political narrative. The term should not appear in relation to these islands at all — not even in passing — as it distorts their individual identities and legal status.

Conclusion: This article promotes a non-existent political entity and should be deleted in accordance with Wikipedia’s core content policies. Neutralwikifixer (talk) 11:35, 15 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sourcing does indeed exist, but please don't use AI/LLMs to craft deletion reasons. — E_F⁵ 13:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. None of the points made here support deleting a 14-year-old page:

1. "Dutch Caribbean" may not be a single legal entity, but it's a notable and widely used geographic and cultural term. WP routinely covers non-political groupings (e.g. Balkans, Scandinavia), and the article clarifies the components' distinct statuses.

2. It accurately details the differing constitutional realities, clearly distinguishing between the autonomous constituent countries and the special municipalities of the Netherlands. I don't see a misrepresentation here.

3. It looks well-sourced and neutrally presents the concept by explicitly explaining the distinct legal statuses of the islands; nowhere is it implied that the region is a unified political body.

4. It clearly explains the distinct statuses. Concerns about reinforcing narratives are subjective; the article primarily documents the factual situation.

5. The term "Dutch Caribbean" is common and notable; you haven't presented any evidence that it creates a "misleading political narrative". — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 13:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep Nominator failed to state their rationale in their own words and this is a common grouping and description for the territories The Netherlands has in the Caribbean. Any LLM responses like above will be ignored, and I have additional concerns about the nominator's name here as someone trying to right great wrongs that simply do not exist, not even getting into how this was their first edit, so this is likely someone who has been here before. Nathannah • 📮 14:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep: If you're going to nominate an article for deletion, at least do it in your own words instead of getting ChatGPT to do it for you. Also strange how this nomination was the user's first edit. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Netherlands, and Caribbean. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:15, 15 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.

Enoteca Boccaccio

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

WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. A few WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS in Melbourne papers are not enough to demonstrate notability especially given the WP:PROMO tone of a lot of this article. The Herald Sun is dubious as a reliable source, nor is notabily inherited because the restaurant is owned by a prominent local family. Dfadden (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Australia. Dfadden (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, it needs more than restaurant reviews in Melbourne papers, otherwise we'd be creating articles for every restaurant reviewed. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom and Libstar appear to be referring to WP:AUD requirement. That requirement gives an example of how small a newspaper would be serving for it to be too small: e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town. Melbourne has a population of over 5 million. The AUD guideline requires at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. It gives an example of regional as "(e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state)". The Herald Sun is the biggest newspaper in Australia, and the Herald Sun's reliability concern is about their factual reporting, not about opinions presented about restaurants. The concern wrt opinions there would be that this was undisclosed paid promotion; there is no evidence that is the case here, indeed it is extremely unlikely.

If you exclude the Herald Sun, there is still The Age which easily meets the AUD requirement. There is plenty of other significant coverage which add up to pass WP:NCORP.[67][68][69][70] The article also doesn't read as having a particularly PROMO tone (It has been described as reminiscent of Italy's streets and piazzas. can be better attributed). It seems like editors think anything that can reflect positively on a business is PROMO. I see BLPs all the time that are far more positive: look at any celebrity FA (e.g. Katy Perry, Oscar Isaac so on.) Sorry this is so long, I really do not understand how the nom perceiving the article to have a PROMO tone would make restaurant reviews in what they describe as "Melbourne papers" not contribute to notability: WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 09:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as the person who wrote WP:AUD ~17 years ago, Rollinginhisgrave has the correct interpretation. Anyone who wants to learn more about AUD may find Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)/Audience requirement or the longer version at User:WhatamIdoing/Audience requirement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Rollinginhisgrave. I see no major issues with tone. The Herald Sun is a reliable source, especially when they are reporting outside of the political realm. Satisfies NCORP. GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rollinginhisgrave, WhatamIdoing even if the sources are valid per WP:AUD, they dont really demonstrate anything other than this place exists and has generally favourable reviews. That sounds pretty WP:MILL. MILL may not be formalised policy, but it is good advice on sensible interpretation of WP:GNG and explicitly says: Some articles not to create based on common sources only are:

*A restaurant that has been given reviews in the local papers

Yes, you can argue that these papers have national circulation, but these WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS are clearly written for a local audience. If this is the standard we accept than any restaurant in a capital city that is reviewed by that city's major newspaper is inherently notable... Giving private businesses wikipedia articles based solely on reviews starts to sound a lot like a WP:TRAVELGUIDE and free publicity does it not?Dfadden (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dfadden, I used small-town vs big-city restaurant reviews as an example at User:WhatamIdoing/Audience requirement#Examples, and I think you should read it.

I am confused by your claim that https://www.theage.com.au/goodfood/melbourne-eating-out/first-look-at-the-stately-enoteca-boccaccio-above-balwyn-s-boccaccio-cellars-20230614-p5dgki.html (the source I clicked on) is "clearly written for a local audience". I expected to see something like "a nice little place to visit if you're already in the neighborhood" (a polite way for reviewers to say "not the worst, but not worth a trip"). Instead, the opening sentence says "The D’Anna family has been luring Italians...to Balwyn for 60 years". Traveling from Italy to Balwyn requires 20 hours in an airplane. That's not local. Maybe you made some assumptions?

Poking around briefly, I find that the restaurant has won the 2023 "Best Hospitality Interior" from Belle (an Australian architectural/design magazine). That's another national source indicating notability. I'll go add it to the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The D’Anna family has been luring Italians... it requires a bit of WP:SYNTHESIS to suggest this is saying people are travelling 20 hours from Italy just to come to this restaurant. Especially given the large Italian diaspora that exists in Melbourne and without anything to support this claim. If someone can cite a review in an Italian paper, sure! Or if there was a report saying a notable Italian person had travelled to Australia just to visit this place, or even stopped in while in town, then that would be evidence to support this claim. In the absence of this, it might as well be editorial hyperbole. And I have re-read your link to AUD examples. It is making a reasonable assumption that because a place has a large population, major newspapers in those markets will only cover businesses which stand out. However, that alone does not make a restaurant notable as it still needs to satisfy the top level criteria at WP:NORG. That requires editors to consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. So apart from the suggestion that people have travelled from Italy and an award for interior design, can you direct me to an article that provides discussion of the cultural, societal, economic or historical impact of this restaurant? An example of this standard being met is Lentil as Anything which was the subject of a book and a television documentary and catered for an International Conference. Also see Colonial Tramcar Restaurant - when it closed, The Age described the event as "A sad day for society", evidenced by support and sadness expressed in the broader community. Dfadden (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it doesn't require any SYNTH at all. SYNTH requires a minimum of two sources, and we are discussing only the interpretation of a single source. You might credibly say that I'm making a big assumption that the "Italians" who are so lured are being lured from their home country and not just from a hotel down the street. I would have to agree with you: it could be editorial hyperbole. But the ambiguity prevents me from agreeing that this review is "clearly written for a local audience", as you claimed above. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Age's Good food guide is a national magazine. A chefs hat rating is akin to a Michelin star in Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly carries some weight and I am not denying this is a very well regarded restaurant. But again, does the hat provide social, cultural, historic or economic significance? I dont believe it does; this is not the only hatted italian restaurant in Melbourne - in fact, its not even in the AGFG top 5 rated italian restaurants in Melbourne[71]: Bottarga in Brighton, Al Dente Enoteca in Carlton are both double hatted and have no articles. Grossi Florentino (double hatted) has an article, which establishes cultural, social and historical significance by virtue of its Murals being classified by the National Trust and WP:LASTING coverage over 95 years. There are 4 other Italian restaurants in Melbourne that received a score of 13 chef hats, above Enoteca Boccaccio's score of 12 and none of them have articles either. So what is so significant about this place that it deserves its own article? Dfadden (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph of WP:ORGSIG that you partially quote above is about not disfavoring small businesses just because they're small, or over-favoring large businesses because they're big. We have, for example, had people suggest in the past that all publicly traded companies should be automatically notable, or that all companies employing more than n people should be notable; ORGSIG opposes this kind of bias. Editors who are thinking "Who cares, it's just a little restaurant" need to think about whether there might be something else going on – something that might even make them more successful when they search for sources. ORGSIG is not a requirement that organizations must have some cultural significance that is legible to Wikipedia editors; it is not saying that WP:ITSIMPORTANT is a good reason to keep an article. It's trying to get editors away from a knee-jerk "just a little restaurant so it's obviously non-notable" mindset towards "Let's see whether there might be something else going on here."

The rest of this comment is a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bottarga and Al Dente Enoteca are probably notable, even though nobody's written the articles yet. We have many Category:Lists of Michelin-starred restaurants; maybe there should be a list of these restaurants. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for engaging in the discussion with well-thought out replies. I'm not at all suggesting that small businesses are less notable than large ones. In fact, I think the example I gave of Grossi Florentino supports that small businesses can indeed be notable. I guess in this case, I have considered your proposition Let's see whether there might be something else going on here and I'm entirely unconvinced that there is anything beyond Enoteca Boccaccio being a restaurant that makes good food and has nice decor. It does sound like a great little restaurant and I'm convinced I would like to eat there. But it's more the the kind of thing I'd expect to read about in a travel or food guide, certainly not an encyclopedia. There does have to be, as you put it, something else going on here that makes it notable otherwise any restaurant with nice decor and a review in a major newspaper becomes apparently encyclopedic content. I don't think that is a good thing for wikipedia. Anyway, I have said far too much on this now, so I will pipe down now and let consensus determine the outcome. Peace. Dfadden (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the intended meaning of ORGSIG, it should be amended to be clearer. I don't Dfadden was unreasonable in making this reading. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 00:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NCORP per the sources in the article. WP:MILL is neither a policy nor a guideline. There's no basis in notability policy that something must be unusual to be notable. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mezha (website)

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:N. Deleted in Russian Wikipedia and Ukrainian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Ukraine. Mitte27 (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Von Grey

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

Never signed to a major label only self-released a handful of EPs and never a full album. The group did some tours as support act but never internationally as far as I can gather. Fails the notability guidelines for WP:MUSIC. Karst (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Karst (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the page was created by a staff member of Red Light Management who had the band on their roster at the time. See this Billboard article where she is mentioned. Karst (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant advertising and COI issue. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RSWM Limited

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources, whether on or off Wikipedia, should be viewed with caution, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like revenue targets, profit/financial reporting, share price, new brand launch news etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am open to reviewing any sources someone can present that meet WP:ORGCRIT, but I cannot locate any in a WP:BEFORE. I tried name variations (including the original name) in Google News, Google Books, and Google Search but there is not enough to add up to significant coverage. I may be searching wrong as I would suspect a company that was founded in 1960 would have more in-depth coverage by now should the public find them worthy of notice. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient WP:ORGCRITE sources.- Imcdc Contact 03:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tega Industries

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources, whether on or off Wikipedia, should be viewed with caution, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. The current page looks like a company advertisement copied onto Wikipedia. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom rationale and recent similar AfD. Svartner (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sources in article and business sites appear routine, but I found a couple of case studies that look like decent coverage. Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad and Sage Business Cases. Would these be considered independent, reliable sources? Eluchil404 (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inspirisys

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources, whether on or off Wikipedia, should be viewed with caution, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. The current page looks like a company advertisement copied onto Wikipedia. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page fails WP:NCORP. Looks like promotional article. This article does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- entirely promotional article ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient WP:ORGCRITE sources.- Imcdc Contact 01:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VISA Steel

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. The current page looks like a company advertisement copied onto Wikipedia. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPIC (Indian company)

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources, whether on or off Wikipedia, should be viewed with caution, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like share price fluctuation news are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and as per nomination. Besides the issues raised, this is horribly written and promotional. We cater to humans with an 8th grade level of reading English, which shouldn't be difficult if you don't use AI and corporate jargon. Bearian (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient WP:ORGCRITE sources. - Imcdc Contact 03:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GSS Infotech

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like revenue targets, profit/financial reporting, funding, acquisitions news etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's little more than a holding company. Bearian (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient WP:ORGCRITE sources. Mostly press releases right now.- Imcdc Contact 03:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mastek

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like revenue targets, share price, profit/financial reporting, merger, demerger capacity expansion, overseas acquisitions etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the way the article is written feels like it’s mainly trying to promote or advertise something. Wikipedia:PROMO. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kauvery Hospital

AfDs for this article:

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like raising funds, performing successful surgeries etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is coverage of the hospital to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8]

References

^ "Undiagnosed diabetes surging in Chennai, a study by Kauvery Hospital shows". BusinessLine. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
^ "'Diabetes on Wheels', an initiative of Kauvery Hospital highlights gaps in early detection and calls for improved awareness". The Hindu. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
^ "Kauvery Hospital releases data on the Diabetes Prevalence in Chennai through a cross sectional study". Expressnews. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
^ "12-Year-Old Girl Undergoes Life-Saving Heart Surgery at Kauvery Hospital, Vadapalani". The Wire. 2 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
^ Standard, Business (25 March 2025). "Kauvery Hospital Honored with Prestigious CFBP Jamnalal Bajaj Award for Fair Business Practices". Business News, Finance News, India News, Stock Markets BSE/NSE News, SENSEX, NIFTY, Personal Finance News. Retrieved 17 April 2025. {{cite web}}: |first= has generic name (help)
^ "Kauvery Hospital introduces Mako Robotic Joint Replacement system". ETHealthworld.com. 17 January 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
^ "Kauvery Hospital Successfully Conducts a grand ECG Masterclass workshop". The Wire. 8 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
^ The Hindu Bureau (31 January 2025). "Kauvery Hospital receives Joint Commission International accreditation". The Hindu. Retrieved 17 April 2025.

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. Created by sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tishreen07/Archive CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of erbil 1991

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

Unverifiable, hoax? The sources and external links given either don't work[72], can't be found (Gunter, Michael M. "The Kurdish Uprising in Iraq: 1991"), or don't mention Erbil or a battle in 1991[73][74]. I couldn't find other sources, e.g. this one doesn't mention Erbil. Fram (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Iraq. Fram (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 15 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 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. Created by sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tishreen07/Archive CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of mount makok 1987

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

Completely unverifiable, hoax? Neither the Human Rights Watch source[75] nor the two books used as sources[76][77] mention Makok (or for the first and third even Rawanduz), and I can find no other sources for this either[78][79]. Fram (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Iraq. Fram (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 15 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.

Jamna Auto Industries

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like establishing new manufacturing units, acquiring others' production units, expanding overseas business by appointing an expat etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unless articles talking about the stock price count (which they don't) then I can find nothing that clears my sniff-test for being independent news. If non-english languages sources can be shown to exist then I can change my vote. Moritoriko (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient WP:ORGCRITE sources.- Imcdc Contact 01:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HDIL

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like share price performances, investments, rudimentary litigation news, etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EClerx

AfDs for this article:

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like quarter-wise revenue targets, share prices, share buybacks, domestic & overseas acquisitions etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zackray

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

The article has used a lot of unreliable sources and fails WP:GNG. I did WP:BEFORE, but there are zero sigcov or lacking of reliable sources about this person. A source like this [80] [81] just states that he just won at The Big House 9 tournament, but that's it. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm confused about how notable are the subject's wins in the world of gaming. Until we have context, I'm not sure what to do. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 10 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!} 08:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG, though it needs improvement and cleanup to be in an acceptable state. MimirIsSmart (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dabuz

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

The article has used a lot of unreliable sources and fails WP:GNG. I did WP:BEFORE, but there are zero sigcov or lacking of reliable sources about this person. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Bull feature is ok, but I could also see a redirect to his current team. IgelRM (talk) 15:51, 12 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!} 08:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes GNG though it needs improvement and cleanup to be in an acceptable state. MimirIsSmart (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The unfortunate reality is that there just aren't many high quality sources covering esports. ESPN shuttered their coverage, the listings at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Esports are pretty small press, and many are region-specific or esport-specific to MOBAs. However, I think I cobbled together enough from the best sources that were available to pass the bar of WP:GNG. At the time that I wrote the article, they were a professionally signed player with major tournament wins, and considered one of the best players in the world in a notable esport by the community-accepted ranking system (If Red Bull is a RS and they devote extensive coverage to the Panda Global rankings, that should be enough). It's been a long time since I participated in AfD, so I'm out of practice and that's the best argument I can make at this time. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:46, 21 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

CyberStep

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

Lacks notable, verifiable sources proving his subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a person Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I have no opinion on the article, I did want to point out that Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a person—i.e. WP:BIO—would not come into play for an article for a company, which falls under NCORP instead. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the sources on JP wiki or done a BEFORE in Japanese? IgelRM (talk) 19:51, 9 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!} 08:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BEFORE not done - there are many sources on the Japanese article that should have been addressed before starting the AfD. Stockhausenfan (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG. MimirIsSmart (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This nomination is just a copypaste from a bunch of other nominations about different types of subjects like BLPs, which do not apply here. This is a waste of community time. MarioGom (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Company does not have to meet person guidelines, plethora of sources on the Japanese article as mentioned. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:18, 21 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 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maveric Systems

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

lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, failing Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Additionally, if the content relies on self-published sources, appears promotional, or does not demonstrate a lasting impact Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Software, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 8 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!} 08:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:13, 15 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.

Rightware

AfDs for this article:

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

lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, failing Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Additionally, if the content relies on self-published sources, appears promotional, or does not demonstrate a lasting impact Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Finland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oppose due to inaccurate nomination this article needs to be updated and there is missing information, but it is not fair to say that it should be deleted because it is not notable and relies on promotional material or self published sources when the sources used are TechCrunch, VentureBeat, etc. There are some self published sources that could be removed, and could have been removed by the nominator faster than creating this AfD. At the same time there are plenty of other RS that could be added to enhance the article and improve it such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 which all support that this firm is notable according to WP:NCORP Nayyn (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources meet NCORP? Specifically, which sources contain "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* and not just regurgitated company info or based on quotes from execs? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:15, 15 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!} 08:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing do you no longer hold your previous view on this? Stockhausenfan (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stockhausenfan, the previous AfD was over 7 years ago and since then, it has been established that reviews of the software product do not confer notability on the company. If the article was about the software, then the software reviews could be used to establish notability on the software. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons as the previous AfD (which is not addressed by the new nomination). Stockhausenfan (talk)

Which references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability of the company? Which parts of the articles are in-depth "independent content" *about* the *company*? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Wagner (disambiguation)

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

Disambiguation page is not required per WP:ONEOTHER: there are only two actually ambiguous terms, and two different spellings. Prod by Frost (talk · contribs) was declined by Barr Theo (talk · contribs). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , but not because of ONEOTHER. It seems to me that neither of the two sportsmen is the primary topic, so I recommend that Franz Wagner be moved to Franz Wagner (basketball) and the undisambiguated page turned into a human name disambiguation page. per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I could support that too. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
@Clarityfiend @Shhhnotsoloud The recently closed RM at Talk:Franz Wagner#Requested_move_23_March_2025 decided that there is a PT. —Bagumba (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: Good spot, thank you. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caribou Lou (disambiguation)

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

Disambiguation page not required. No mention of "Caribou Lou" at Cocktail or List of cocktails. PROD by 162 etc. (talk · contribs) declined because this has been PRODded before. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently the cocktail/recipe is mentioned in the song itself and became popular(?) as a result, but that can be mentioned in main article. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unnecessary disambiguation page. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:43, 15 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Korv Stroganoff

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

Regional varieties of Stroganoff are already listed in the Beef Stroganoff article. Korv Stroganoff is already mentioned in Beef_Stroganoff#Nordic_countries and its typical ingredients and serving methods are adequately summarised there.

The citations used in this article are also primarily from supermarket websites and cooking recipe blogs; not (WP:RELIABLE). Lea 4545 (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Sweden. Lea 4545 (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Revise the information in the Stroganof article instead.Blockhaj (talk)

Keep. From a quick search there appears to be enough coverage in Swedish RS to support notability (and I am not counting any recipes). Remember that article quality is not a reason for deletion. Sjö (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To further note, majority of the recipies are from major supermarkets. Also, if i remember correctly, when i made the article i added separate doublets for all claims. So in short, "not WP:reliable" does not apply. Blockhaj (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then Merge: The deletion proposal was not based on subject notability, nor primarily on article quality. The topic is already adequately covered in the Beef Stroganoff article, making a separate page unnecessary. This constitutes a unacceptable type of content fork per WP:REDUNDANTFORK.

Per WP:PAGEDECIDE: "At times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context." This applies here, as Korv Stroganoff is a regional variant of Beef Stroganoff and benefits from being presented within the broader context of related variations. Lea 4545 (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Korv Stroganoff only derives from Beef Stroganoff, but it is its own dish. It is a completely different staple in Sweden and Finland. With this logic it makes more sense to merge Haggis into Pölsa, as the former is just a lamb variant of it. Blockhaj (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Korvstroganoff is a separate dish. It has a distinct role in Swedish society (essentially a kids' meal), very different from the role Beef Stroganoff plays in other Western countries. --Soman (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that it makes sense to see this as a separate dish, rather than a variant of Beef Stroganoff. /Julle (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Sounds like a kid-friendly food. Note: there's no tag on the article. Bearian (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it cuz the discussion was dead and everyone voted to keep it. Blockhaj (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We keep the AfD template until the AfD conversation has been formally closed. (: /Julle (talk) 09:47, 17 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.

Prime ministerial candidacy of Narendra Modi

Nomination: How a party decided their prime ministerial candidate is not notable and interesting topic at all. India has Parliamentary system in contrast to Presidential system. According to this logic, Prime Minister should be decided only after the election. This article doesn't demand a separate article. This article doesn't seem notable at all and may be formed due to ideological biasness. This article should either be deleted or be merged to Narendra Modi. XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The majority of the info is simply repeated in Narendra Modi section titled Premiership campaigns. His campaigns on there own were not unique and only hold significance because he is the prime minister of India.

The event doesn't hold noteriaty outside of him so it should be found in Narendra Modi article (which a version already exists).

RCSCott91 (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Narendra Modi I support having separate article for political campaigns, especially for someone like Modi. Modi's article already has too much content and part of it should be split off into their own articles. This article would be a great split. It currently has about 20 sources, so there is substantial content here. I am only voting to merge because it needs more work for finish the split, and if the split is not finished, then we should have all the content in one place. I would change to "keep" if editors would check the main Modi article, move content from there to here, briefly summarize the concept, and link the main article to here while avoiding duplicate/WP:FORK content appearing in both places. I want to support keeping this but right now it is a WP:FORK. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of aftershocks of the 2025 Myanmar earthquake

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

Few aftershocks are notable on their own hence a standalone list is not warranted. Wikipedia is not a database for every single event without any substantial notability. They are common and expected for large earthquakes of this size. The list just feels like a directory of events recorded by USGS. If there are notable aftershocks, they will receive coverage in List of earthquakes in 2025 of the article about the mainshock. The rationale to keep based on one or two aftershocks is not legit justification. On notability based on media coverage, they lack WP:DEPTH and are WP:ROUTINE stories that can be included in main articles. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of the aftershocks are notable is blatantly inaccurate. — E_F⁵ 14:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a justified argument. Aftershocks are a WP:ROUTINE media coverage for every major earthquake sequence. Merely reporting a single aftershock does not to tell me it's worth keeping is absurd. In fact, the article goes to say; "There were no immediate reports of major damage or casualties caused by the new quake" That automatically fails WP:EVENT. The media will continue to pump content, Wikipedia is not a repository of information for anything on the media without considering layers of factors. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly "weak", it clearly disproves the incorrect statement that zero of the aftershocks are notable. — E_F⁵ 14:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that casualties and damage aren't necessarily a factor in notability, so "This is not a justified argument". — E_F⁵ 14:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Applying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not solidify the argument either Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dora the Axe-plorer, that's an essay and doesn't need to be strictly followed. — E_F⁵ 14:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And telling me 2024 New Jersey earthquake exist does not solidify your point Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did the New Jersey earthquake kill anybody? No. "Major damage"? No. Yet, would you look at that, there is a plethora of news sources on it. — E_F⁵ 14:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a very weak argument to link a news article mentioning the aftershock which did not cause any significant impact to tell me it is notable. A nod on the media is a low-bar in notability. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone didn't do a BEFORE search! So, again, the deletion reason is blatantly inaccurate, and I'm not looking to argue further on it. — E_F⁵ 14:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone doesn't understand what " major damage " is apparently. So much digging yet nothing substantial. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even take one look at the six links I've given? As shown above (OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay and doesn't hold weight in an AfD; I also disagree with its usage here), "major damage" goes to crap if the shock (in this case the 5.5 one) is notable in the media. Things don't have to kill people to be notable. — E_F⁵ 14:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then my question is why do you think this list should be kept based on one aftershock? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See below. — E_F⁵ 14:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note in my deletion rationale: "if there are notable aftershocks, they will appear in List of earthquakes in 2025", which this 5.5 aftershock already appears inside. I did not object to that. But do we need an entire list to accommodate one aftershock? It requires more than one event to support the notion to keep this list. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please at least read this Al-J publication. Several aftershocks, not just "one event", are mentioned. At least to me, this and some other publications I mentioned above meet WP:INDEPTH. — E_F⁵ 14:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After working on dozens of earthquake articles, these isn't worthy content to me. In almost every major earthquake, aftershocks will rattle nerves, throw down some damaged buildings, dislodge bricks, etc. Then the humanitarian aid/relief committees would comment about the potential for more aftershocks/people living in the streets due to fear of further shocks. Earthquake after earthquake, editors will notice just about the same weight and content repeated to the point one could categorize them under WP:ROUTINE depending on how they interpret it.

That this list aims to identify individual aftershocks (thus the table), however few are notable on their own (the 6.7 and 5.5 are exceptions). When Al-J mentions "hindering rescue efforts for those still missing after Friday’s magnitude 7.7 earthquake", for example, it is the cumulative notable qualities of all the aftershocks and their impact on rescue work and post-disaster life. We can't tell individually what their effects are because there is not enough written about them. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For both of you guys, it's worth noting that there was an old RFC (2018) about this question here [82]. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

┌───────────────────────────┘
Huh, interesting. How did List of aftershocks of April 2015 Nepal earthquake, mentioned in the opening statement, survive? — E_F⁵ 16:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Dora nor I was editing back then, so I'm not sure about that. Maybe @Mikenorton: could help us out here (he participated in the discussion). Worth noting that there is now an open-access study in a peer-reviewed journal about this topic ([83]), although it did not exist during the time of the RFC, nor is it currently in use in the Nepal aftershocks article. Also worth noting is that while this discussion was ongoing, an editor removed all Myanmar 2025 aftershocks deemed insignificant by them, so there's only a single one left. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wildfireupdateman, I've reverted them. Especially since this discussion is ongoing, we shouldn't be mass-blanking things based on personal opinion. — E_F⁵ 17:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "no aftershocks are notable" is incorrect, but there were only two notable aftershocks I could find - the 6.7 right after and the 5.x like two days ago that caused a bit of damage. Large amounts of aftershocks are common after major quakes.

WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wildfireupdateman can you strikethrough your previous comment. Each editor gets one vote, your bolded "Support" could be interpreted as another editor's vote (double vote). Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I didn't realize that the old discussion had been transcluded. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Would Support a deletion - this quake was actually unusually quiet for its size in terms of aftershocks. In addition, earthquakes such as December 2023 Mindanao earthquake and 2021 South Sandwich Islands earthquakes, which had much more aftershocks than this one. It is unknown how many deaths occurred from the one notable aftershock. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC) ~~:This was on my radar for a deletion discussion per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Dawnseeker2000 05:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Btw @Dawnseeker2000, this is now an AFD, you may want to indicate delete/keep Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As in previous discussions on this topic, Lists of aftershocks are not in my view generally notable, although individual aftershocks may be. Mikenorton (talk) 21:05, 16 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Lists of aftershocks , whether embedded or standalone, are problematic for a few reasons:
1. There's a lack of encyclopedic value. As Dora mentioned, we are not able to compete with the completeness of authoritative sites like the USGS. Their comprehensive catalog is just that. [84]
2. As it stands, the list does not mention any inclusion criteria; if its intention is to include all aftershocks, it is failing. The link just there lists 44 shocks and our list has 26. Lists need to have clearly-defined criteria (WP:LISTCRITERIA). The lists that WikiProject Earthquakes maintains, either by year or by region all have these criteria, so what is going on with this one. I removed the non-notable items from the list a few days ago and was reverted by someone that is participating in this discussion, with their edit summary saying "mass removal not rooted in inclusion criteria". The criteria needs to be defined in the article or on the article's talk page.
3. The list is a great example of WP:LISTCRUFT; in other words, it's an indiscriminate collection of information that lacks context. It's rather superfluous and trivial; if there are any aftershocks worth mentioning, just do that in the article. The list was created 11:22, 28 March 2025 by Noble Attempt. At the time that Noble Attempt linked the main article to the list article, the main article's size was just 54,247 bytes. At the time of the lists creation, the main article only contained four sentences regarding aftershocks. If any improvement to the aftershock content was needed, it could have been done right there in the main article. Remember that Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and that aftershocks are not a major component of this event.
4. The next topic is about sourcing. When EF5 challenged the initial PROD, they listed a number of links in their edit summary. Let's look at them one by one.
The Hindu dropped a story on 13 April that says right in the title "New earthquake shakes central Myanmar... ...no immediate reports of major damage or casualties" [85].
The next one is from The Times of India and it says that people were frightened and rushed outdoors. Some plaster cracked and suspended ceiling tiles fell. In other words, they're not claiming any new structural effects. Plaster and/or drywall cracks rather easily and those ceiling tiles can come down pretty quick, too. [86]
The next one is from The Nation in Thailand and it says "468 aftershocks registered since March 28". If our list is meant to be all-inclusive, it is coming up short. [87]
NBC News said that people went "screaming into the streets" after several aftershocks. No further mention of these events is discussed in the article; it instead focuses on the war and the effects of the mainshock. [88]

These don't mention anything of substance related to the aftershocks. Maybe more importantly, they are non-authoritative entities (with regard to earthquakes) and the stories exist to promote their advertising click-through rate. Dawnseeker2000 20:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place of indiscriminate information Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE. Iban14mxl (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karbon (software)

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

Nonnotble unreferenced piece of software --Altenmann >talk 06:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calligra#Components. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amago Yoshihisa

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

This only has one source, Kotobank, and that is not a good one. It fails notability and has been tagged due to lacking sources for years. DrGlef (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The corresponding Japanese article makes it clear that the topic is notable. Yes, the sourcing should be improved but that's not an argument for deletion. -- Taku (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A reasonable WP:BEFORE would have found the references on Ja-Wiki. UtherSRG (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I echo what the KEEP voters above have said. Subject is historically notable. Goodboyjj (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Japanese article is very developed and has sources. Kotobbank shows Britannica and the Asahi Japanese Historical Figures Dictionary which are significant. Fulmard (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Azai Hisamasa

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

This lacks sources for notability. There is only one source, Kotobank, which is questionable. DrGlef (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The corresponding Japanese article lists some reliable sources. So, I don't see any notability issue. Non-English sources can be perfectly reliable. -- Taku (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English sources can be reliable. Most of the Japanese language sources I have seen cited on English wikipedia are websites that aren't reliable. If you could add the Japanese sources to the English article, that would solve the problem, provided that they are reliable. DrGlef (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like said, the corresponding Japanese article gives some reliable sources. They are not personal websites, so they should be reliable. —- Taku (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically,

小和田哲男『近江浅井氏の研究』清文堂、2005年4月20日。ISBN 4-7924-0579-3。
黒田惟信編『東浅井郡志』 2巻、滋賀県東浅井郡教育会、1927年11月28日。doi:10.11501/1242715。
宮島敬一著、日本歴史学会編『浅井氏三代』吉川弘文館〈人物叢書　新装版〉、2008年2月1日。ISBN 978-4-642-05244-3。

For example, 小和田哲男 is a well-known scholar. So the case for the notability seems clear to me. —- Taku (talk) 09:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A reasonable WP:BEFORE would have found the references on Ja-Wiki. UtherSRG (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Japanese article is developed as has sources. Kotobank shows the Asahi Japanese Historical Figures Dictionary which is not insignificant. Fulmard (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Please see Google Books and Google Scholar. No apparent WP:BEFORE. Since WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, the state of the article is irrelevant. Definitely notable, and the argument made above doesn't appear to reject this possibility but instead seemingly mistakes AfD for cleanup. Aintabli (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Azai Sukemasa

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

This article lacks sources for notability. The only source is kotobank, which is questionable. DrGlef (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The corresponding Japanese article cites some reliable sources. So, this is an instance "sources exist but are not listed in the article". -- Taku (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A reasonable WP:BEFORE would have found the references on Ja-Wiki. UtherSRG (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Japanese article is developed and has sources. Kotobank shows an Encyclopedia Nipponica entry for Azai Sukemasa, which is significant. Fulmard (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Clearly notable figure in Japanese history. The article needs to be expanded from the original. Svartner (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akai Terukage

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

This article has been tagged for notability and lack of sources since 2015. The only source is has, is not reliable. It is a very short stub. DrGlef (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: have you done a WP:BEFORE for the Japanese language sources in the Japanese version of the article? Stockhausenfan (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know Japanese. DrGlef (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:BEFORE was not met. Stockhausenfan (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Japanese version of the article is not short, and has sources. He is in a biographical name dictionary. Fulmard (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has sources per the Japanese original page. --Unicorbia (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaj Ki Taaqat

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

Not notable. Could not find multiple credible sources. Hindust@ni^{क्या करें? बातें!} 05:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Upasana Singh#Filmography: or to List of Hindi films of 1993 (entries in encyclopedias indicate a 1993 release). If sources are found or others think it meets NFIC for some reason, not opposed to Keep. -Mushy Yank. 08:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added 2 sources for verification. -Mushy Yank. 10:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2 sources on the page and both unreliable and dead. No other reliable sources on the page with significant coverage or multiple critical reviews on the film. Fails WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2 more sources were added but just an entry and the other with cast and crew list and one sentence mention "This was actor Anil Nagrath's only films as a director". Nothing significant. RangersRus (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added the said sources for verification (and to support a redirect), fwiw. -Mushy Yank. 19:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Villilä studios

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

The article not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for companies or studios. Kopnakolicti (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kopnakolicti (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Finland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 8 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!} 05:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it passes WP:ORGDEPTH, but there's quite some news coverage from Finnish media (e.g. Yle). I would suggest searching for "Villilä Studiot". MarioGom (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vivienne Pinay

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

Does not pass GNG. Only piece of independent, in-depth coverage is an interview in "Hotspots Magazine" from 2013. The other source with subject's name in headline is just a recap of a reality TV episode on which the subject was eliminated; it is not in-depth coverage of Vivienne Pinay. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sexuality and gender, Philippines, and Georgia (U.S. state). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, you interpret this person’s one-episode guest spot on Skin Wars and their run on RuPaul’s Drag Race to make them a notable entertainer, despite a lack of notability-establishing coverage? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked you several times now to leave me alone. I will not be engaging with you further so please do not ask me questions or post on my talk page again. Thanks ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply not a reasonable ask when it comes to AfD, and I will not be avoiding your votes in this discussion. You are free to not reply, obviously. Biography subjects need WP:SIGCOV, and this subject does not meet that standard. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reasonable thing to say in a public AfD discussion. Stockhausenfan (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In real life the subject is a friend of several friends of mine and, since my partner is Filipino-American, I have found that both the LGBTQ and pinoy worlds are very small and interconnected. So I'm not going to !vote. I feel obligated to point out that the subject was eliminated after the 4th episode of RuPaul's Drag Race, but they also have tens of thousands of followers on social media. Discuss amongst yourselves. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race season 5. Not prominent enough for stand alone article. Reads like a promo. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That redirect makes sense to me too ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disagree. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would argue that being a member of the Haus of Edwards in addition to the Drag Race and Skin Wars stint qualify them under the first criteria of WP:NENTERTAINER. I think there's room to give the article a badly needed touchup, but outright deletion may not be called for. If I am misunderstanding NENTERTAINER please clarify. Relm (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Opinion is divided between Keep and Redirect. A source review would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intec Digital

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

Although I'm on the fence, I don't think this organization meets GNG. Of the four sources listed, two are unreliable (i.e., Facebook and Discogs) and one lacks SIGCOV (i.e., DJ Mag). I found an interview in Vice [89] with a paragraph about the company, as well as post at EDM House Network [90], though that could be a press release. Further, this article has been tagged for notability concerns since 2017 with few efforts at improvement. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Carl Cox. The nomination doesn't give a particularly good sense that this should have been sent to AfD; the nominator isn't strongly in favor of deletion and doesn't mention WP:MUSIC despite this being a music-related topic (it's only referred to as a company, rather than a record label). Many, many AfDs of record labels are label imprints of notable musical artists, and this one is no exception; I'm not sure that there's sufficient reason for a standalone article here, but mentioning it in connection with Cox's other artistic output makes sense. In general, these should be proposed as merges rather than sent to AfD; there's no reason to have a redlink here. Chubbles (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there any more support for a possible Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Several redirects pointing towards this article are currently nominated at RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 9#Intec Digital redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Chibueze

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. No independent reliable coverage; most of the coverage consists of "Chibueze said," "Chibueze told," "Chibueze commented," etc. Cinder painter (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect: to PiggyVest, there seems to be more coverage about the compnay than about his person. He's also the founder... Wired seems to be the best source, but it hardly talks about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Does PiggyVest exists? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would likely have to be created. It seems notable, most of the coverage here used for this person is about the company. Oaktree b (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirecting to a non-existent article is not a viable option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more sources added and now pass WP:NBASIC for multiple mentions in several credible and reliable independent third party sources. Omaojo (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article now has a whole lot of WP:CITEKILL. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not look notable. He is just an entrpreneur and doe snot display exceptional charcteristcs for a stand alone article. No article exists for PiggyVest either so redirect is not a good alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are multiple sources that are significant enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC and have jointly won some awards and honors with co-founders of a notable company without an article here. The article is a stub, and the current sourcing is significant to sustain it. CPDJay (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are a few sources to pass WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A fairly typical PROMO business biography. Wired is the only source I'd count toward WP:GNG, and that's not enough. The rest are: a promotional article published by a literal marketing agency; WP:CHURNALISM based on podcast WP:INTERVIEWs (original, derivatives here and here; also [91]); more unbylined promo; WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS ([92], [93], [94]); a press release (original release here); and profile from an IT advocacy organization that is not independent. Nothing else here to meet GNG or WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated but BellaNaija doesn’t attribute articles to their staffs. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to hear more arguments from editors experienced in AFD discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I sadly could not find sufficient WP:INDEPENDENT source to satisfy WP:GNG. PiggyVest is actually a clear-cut notable business and I wish it existed already, redirecting this there would have sufficed as ATD. I also do not have time to write a new article right away, I would have ventured. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Dclemens arguments above are the most convincing to me, looking through the sources presented here I don't think we have two or more independent sources discussing Chibueze. It could just be too soon but I am not finding the sources now. Moritoriko (talk) 05:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Shoerack (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Fails GNG. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 04:47, 21 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. Good save by Technopat! (non-admin closure)‎ Ravenswing 12:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tercio of Idiáquez

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

One-sentence sub-stub about a non-notable military formation. Unimproved in sixteen years and likely unimprovable. Would have PRODed it, but someone already tried that, and the prod removed on specious grounds. Ravenswing 04:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep"/"Redirect": As with the military commander whose name is associated with it [a 100 years after its formation], it is a clearly notable historical military unit (possible confusion due to its "official"/"unoffical" name). Although not on my list of priorities, am in process of "improving" it rather than seeing it deleted. --Technopat (talk) 22:00, 16 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.

Julie Cohen

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Julie Cohen (2nd nomination)

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

Does not meet notability reqs for WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:ENTERTAINER, or WP:MUSICBIO. scant third party coverage (most of which copies the bio from their band website), no major acting roles, no significant contributions to music. I tried to add sources/improve the page before filing this AfD. I can't see a reason to keep this page. Puppies937 (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree per above reasoning. LastJabberwocky (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacking SIGCOV. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Wollongong floods

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

All the sources are from the time of the floods in March 2011. There is no WP:LASTING coverage of this to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Floods in New South Wales, which already contains most of the information in the article. Agree that this fails WP:NEVENT due to the lack of lasting coverage. I had a look on Google Scholar and Google Books to see if there was any evidence that these floods had been researched or used as a case study, and came up with nothing. And I couldn't find any substantial news coverage from after 2011 either. Happy to change my mind if anyone is able to find meaningful SIGCOV from after 2011, but as far as I can tell this fails WP:NEVENT. MCE89 (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Floods in New South Wales as per above (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maharaja Chhatra Singh Rana

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

GNG issues. None of the cited references provide significant coverage even though most of them are too old. Koshuri ^(グ) 03:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, India, and Madhya Pradesh. Koshuri ^(グ) 03:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not only does it fail to meet WP:SIGCOV, but the article creator has also been found to have AI-generated nearly every article or draft they’ve created. Likely this article is also AI-generated. ApexParagon (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The AI remark makes sense: right now I deleted there a ref to a different book, but with verbatim identical text about this Chattar. Obviously the creator didnt read them. --Altenmann >talk 04:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All poor and unreliable sources on the page. No significant coverage on the subject. Nothing notable here. RangersRus (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grits & Eggs (podcast)

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

I couldn't find any sources on a WP:BEFORE besides social media, no indication that it meets WP:GNG. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, Entertainment, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Fisher (agent)

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

I've attempted to find any sort of coverage in RS, there doesn't appear to be any, Fails GNG. Iban14mxl (talk) 02:41, 15 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, Fashion, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Norachit Sinhaseni

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable, and I don't see evidence that this one passes WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. The coverage is brief and routine coverage of him in the context of his job, not WP:SIGCOV of him. Please ping if I missed any qualifying sources in my search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Thailand. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is quite incomplete. After his ambassadorial posts, he was Permanent Secretary for Foreign Affairs, then spokesman of the 2014 junta's Constitution Drafting Committee, and later a representative of Thailand to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. He also had an executive position in Centara and some other companies. But there's not much in-depth coverage. There's an interview in The Nation covering him as an individual, but it's an interview.[95] There's this Khaosod profile piece,[96] but it only lists his positions in résumé format. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:24, 4 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!} 02:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Paul 012, since you weighed in here, do you have an opinion on what should become of this article in a closure?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Based on policy I'd say it's a weak delete, but considering that the article creator has a pending unblock request I'd rather postpone a bit further to see if they have anything to say. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Morgpie

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Most sources are not significant coverage or from non-reliable sources. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER.

Any independent coverage of her from reliable sources seems to fall under WP:BLP1E. A one-off stunt on Twitch to attempt to circumvent guidelines is not notable.

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED; however, just because it is not censored doesn't mean that pornographic persons get a pass on meeting notability because people are too afraid to nominate them out of fear of being called a censor.

(renomination after first nomination was speedy-closed due to article being on the Main Page) ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Video games, and Texas. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the creator of the article, I obviously am advocating for a keep here. It was already speedy kept because it appeared on the main page in the DYK section. This means it already underwent the DYK review process which ensures that referencing is suitable and appropriate, and ensures the article is presentable. If one goes to the DYK nom discussion, they can see this was a bit more of an involved process too. There, I addressed why specific sources worked and conceded ones that didn't. Those that totally didn't have since been removed and replaced. Ultimately, I made sure during that process to have sources within the article to be in-line with how WP:RSP and WP:VG/RS allows for specific sources to be approached/implemented. I apologize if this is in any way inappropriate or out of place, but I figured a courtesy ping for that DYK nom's reviewer (@Tenpop421:) and promoter (@Launchballer:) may end up being helpful to further understand why that DYK nom was successful and found no issues with sourcing.

To be totally comprehensive/fair and address the concerns listed here:

"Fails to meet WP:GNG. Most sources are not significant coverage or from non-reliable sources. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER."

No, in my view, this does not fail to meet WP:GNG. Idk why "most sources" matters here (and I know it doesn't as per WP:GNG only asking that articles have significant coverage in reliable sources, but doesn't set any real hard lines on how many of the article's sources need to be meeting that criteria, though I assume the bare minimum is two since plural "reliable sources" is written in criteria). Yes, the majority of sources I incorporated do not do full deep-dives on Morgpie. Some of them mention her in passing, and some of the sources the article uses are there just to verify context around her (i.e. the Ars Technica source). However, there are present multiple sources that do satisfy the criteria of being significant coverage and reliable: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I'd also argue other sources such as 6, and 7 help supplement/flesh out the article's sourcing. Basically, if there was a lack of sourcing present in regards to satisfying WP:GNG, it would be made up by the whole being greater than the sum of the parts here (in terms of sourcing). But like I'm saying, ample sourcing is there.

Also WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:ENTERTAINER is met in aggregate here. Those criteria are so briefly detailed/described, but points 1 and 2 in WP:CREATIVE are met here. Those two points that ask the individual to (1) be regarded as important/cited by peers and (2) have originated a new concept/theory/technique. That's covered by the fact that there is sourcing present (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) that cites her originating metas (essentially Twitch content-equivalent of a concept/technique/genre) that influenced other creators on the platform (whether they like her content or not). Here's an additional source of one of the platform's biggest creators (Cr1TiKaL, who in this case would be considered her peer or at least contemporary on Twitch) calling her the "most influential". I would say this sort of thing also helps satisfy point 2 ("The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.") of the WP:ENTERTAINER criteria.

"Any independent coverage of her from reliable sources seems to fall under WP:BLP1E. A one-off stunt on Twitch to attempt to circumvent guidelines is not notable."

This wasn't a "one-off stunt" though. Sourcing present, especially from 2024, make it clear that she has multiple times influenced other creators on the platform (as well as the platform itself to respond to her content). Sentences from sourcing present in the article include: (1); "This isn't the first time Morgpie's creativity has led Twitch to a reactionary policy change"; (2); "several risqué streams hosted by one of the platform's most notorious boundary pushers. Morgpie, who played a pivotal in the "topless meta" that flourished on Twitch last December, found a new way to challenge Twitch's censors". The other points in the WP:BLP1E criteria ("The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" and "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented" are also not applicable here; as an active streamer, she is not even trying to remain a low-profile individual; and her role in the "one-off stunt" here (again not a one-off, anyway, but if it was,) was both substantial and well documented.

Also, as a further consideration, she was a pornographic actress prior to becoming a Twitch streamer, which further suggests she isn't notable for one event, and this is also bolstered by her winning of major porn industry awards (1), 2) which also establishes her as notable outside of the Twitch content sphere.

"Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED; however, just because it is not censored doesn't mean that pornographic persons get a pass on meeting notability because people are too afraid to nominate them out of fear of being called a censor."

I actually don't care about this. I definitely am assuming good faith here in the nomination. I also honestly wouldn't know whether pornographic-industry bios are more or less likely to be tagged for deletion. I do think the nomination (in my view) is closer to snow side of the spectrum than not, but I don't think it was maliciously intended nor do I think you're trying to be a censor.

Soulbust (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comment: Notability demonstrated by several incidents involving apparent nudity causing a series of reactions from others. At the same time, the article's section on this topic is sensationally written and artificially inflated through opinions and statements from official Twitch, other streamers and magazine/news editors as well as questionable "general opinions" to show more content than what is being shown. While it absolutely fails WP:BLP1E, being a lower profile individual with little notability outside of the stunt. It does demonstrate the most basic of GNG, so I'm not considering a Delete just yet. Still, I don't believe users need the picture of topless Morgpie or her playing Fortnite greenscreened on her buttocks to identify her behavior of streaming with a risque sense of humor to apparently varied reception as a subject of (exaggerated) discussion in the article. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself stated "Notability demonstrated" and that is passes GNG (also shouldn't and really doesn't matter if it passes the "most basic" criteria or not: if it passes, it passes). So the notability here isn't the issue. So already, that's one rationale in the nomination you disagree with. You agree with the "WP:BLP1E" concern, but as I said above in my initial comment, there are in fact multiple moments in her Twitch content career described in the article's prose and indeed cited by the sources used. I addressed that BLP1E concern in my comment, and I feel like calling what she did a "stunt", likely unintentionally but still, downplays the content in the article? If I recall correctly, none of the sourcing describes it as a stunt, so trying to place that description on her content wouldn't be in bounds here.
Your other issues seems to be with how the article is written and the imagery used. Those shouldn't come into play in regards to deleting the whole article. Those are issues that can be addressed by improving the article instead of just nuking it entirely. But at the same time, how is the article written sensationally? Like where is the sensationalism? Genuinely, please point out the concrete examples or instances of that, because I wrote the majority of this article, and actually do not appreciate that it's being called "sensational". I tried my best to write it in the objective, encyclopedic wikivoice that is expected on here, so if you're going to call it sensational, then point out the instances where that may occur and I'll see if I can tweak/fix/address it. But doing a quick re-skim over the prose right now, I don't really see what you can be referring to.
I also don't get your concern about "artificial inflation" of the prose. You mention that's done by opinions and statements from "official Twitch, other streamers and magazine/news editors as well as questionable "general opinions" to show more content than what is being shown." But okay yeah, I think including how Twitch, the platform itself, officially responded to her content is absolutely critical and necessary here... so what's the issue? Including that info doesn't "inflate" the article, "artificially" or otherwise. How other streamers reacted is needed here too, because it provides a sense of the content's reception, and the article doesn't go overboard with any sort of exhaustive list of every single person's feelings on it. Also, the deletion nomination invokes the rationale of the article supposedly failing WP:CREATIVE. That guideline literally mentions peers regarding the subject as important as a criteria that if met, establishes the subject's notability. So how then does including other streamers' (i.e. peers') opinions on her as influential "inflate" the article? Regarding "Magazine/news editors" opinions, those should be more than fine to include because they give a third-party opinion/view of the subject and her content. I actually think there's only one such opinion included in the article (the Stanley quote), and aside it's just standard inclusion of third-party reception of someone's content. What's the issue there?

Other statements in the reception section are included to describe+cite (1) the influence of Morgpie's content on other streamers' output (i.e. copycat streamers), (2) comparisons to a previous meta (which I found relevant to include because Morgpie commented on this herself), and (3) how Twitch users reacted to the policy changes that, and this is critical to understand here, occurred in response to the content that Morgpie popularized on the platform. How is any of that undue or inflationary to include and how would that be trying to "show more content than what is being shown" (which I am already unsure about what that means).

The images used are also in-bounds here, as they help give a visual to the article (and there is no explicit nudity used, so it doesn't go past any potentially gratuitous boundary), but even if you don't think or don't like the images used, again that concern shouldn't be concentrated into the deletion of the article, so I don't think it's relevant to bring up nor necessary for me to elaborate further about it in this particular space/discussion. Soulbust (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I forgot to save updates I made to that comment before your response so I apologize for that. You made some good points but I'm still not sure about the ultimate fate of the article unless more editors chime in on their opinions. MimirIsSmart (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize honestly. I do understand the goal here is to be constructive overall. Also, sorry if I came across aggressive in any way, I think I might have after re-reading my reply a bit, and if I did, that was not intentional. Soulbust (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless I misread the article, it wasn't "a one-off stunt on Twitch to circumvent guidelines", but multiple stunts on Twitch: December 2023 and March 2024, each of which got coverage. Twitch seems to be where she works, and doing stunts is a reasonable first order approximation to what being on Twitch is. That's not BLP1E, that's an oeuvre . --GRuban (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found and added a free image to the article infobox. (I do that occasionally.) Have no fear - lots of clothing! --GRuban (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Baffling nomination. This clearly meets WP:SUSTAINED.--Laun chba ller 17:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Nahar

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

Orignal creator of this article was blocked for WP:COI and WP:PROMO. This persons fails WP:GNG as well as WP:AUTHOR, due to lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Also most of the sources on this article are not about him, hence checked carefully. It may be created for undisclosed payments because this article creator also created articles on his multiple books which are also nothing more than promotion. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR TheSlumPanda (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

The article on Vijay Nahar should be retained. There is sufficient coverage in a wide range of independent and reliable sources, satisfying Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline for authors, historians, and public figures. His work spans historical biographies, political commentary, and education-focused literature. Below is a list of significant sources that discuss his contributions:
=== Media & News Coverage: ===
=== Literary & Historical Commentary: ===
=== Library Catalogs & Book Listings: ===
----These references clearly demonstrate both the coverage and influence of Vijay Nahar’s work. While the Wikipedia article might benefit from improvements in structure, formatting, and inline citations, the subject himself meets Wikipedia's notability threshold. Therefore, the article should be improved, not dele Gujjar.rudraa (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all sources are not about this subject. Some are about maharana Pratap, or other are about modi or vasundra raje, also the #2 TOI article is a reliable source but that talks more about the book written by him. And please remind that online listing of books for purchase like Amazon doesn’t confer notability. TheSlumPanda (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vijay Nahar is an Indian author and historian known for his biographical and historical works on notable Indian political figures and Rajput kings. His book Swarnim Bharat ke Swapndrishtha Narendra Modi has been referenced in multiple media outlets, including The Sunday Guardian, for its early commentary on Narendra Modi’s developmental vision and personal life aspects, including his marriage, which was highlighted during political discourse (The Sunday Guardian, Amar Ujala).

Nahar’s biography of Vasundhara Raje, Vasundhara Raje aur Viksit Rajasthan, is among the first dedicated publications on her political career and is noted in news profiles (Jansatta). His contributions to historical research include books on Samrat Bhoj Parmar, Mihir Bhoj, and Rao Akheraj Songara, which have been cited in literary platforms such as Sahitya Kunj and Sahitya Nama, and are among the few comprehensive modern works available on these historical figures (Sahitya Kunj, Udaipur Kiran).

In the context of Maharana Pratap, Nahar's writings have been used in regional discourse to support the view that Pratap was born in Pali, Rajasthan—challenging the traditionally cited location of Kumbhalgarh attributed to Colonel Tod (Bhaskar, Samvad). His contributions have also been recognized through awards and coverage in local media outlets, emphasizing his role in historical interpretation and education.

While online listings like Amazon do not independently confer notability, they help identify the range and accessibility of his publications. Furthermore, his books have been featured in school libraries in Rajasthan, according to a report by The Times of India (TOI). Gujjar.rudraa (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His book on narendra modi got media coverage like 1, 2. While the sunday guardian have only passing mention at last which is not enough. But if we talk about notability of this subject them i am still inclined toward deletion because of lack of Significant coverage about him in independent sources rather than sticking only on his modi book.TheSlumPanda (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
== Sources supporting notability ==
Lokmat Times – Photos of Gulab Kataria Ji – Features visuals and associations, including those connected to historian Vijay Nahar and other BJP figures.

Dainik Bhaskar – Pali historian Nahar got Bhandari Honors in Udaipur – Reports on a prestigious honor conferred to Vijay Nahar, recognizing his contributions to historical literature.

Sahitya Kunj – Samraat Bhoj Parmar Sameeksha – A critical review of Vijay Nahar’s historical writing on King Bhoj, hosted by a Hindi literary platform.

Jansatta – Vasundhara Raje’s political profile – Refers to authors including Nahar who’ve written about Rajasthan’s leadership and political figures.

Punjab Kesari – Maharana Pratap Jayanti – Covers public celebration of figures about whom Vijay Nahar has authored biographies.

News Puran – Death Anniversary of Maharana Pratap – Discusses cultural memory around Maharana Pratap, a key figure in Vijay Nahar’s historical works.

Samvad.in – It’s a lie that Maharana Pratap ate grass loaves – Offers myth-busting perspectives in history also reflected in Vijay Nahar’s revisionist narratives.

Jain Gazette – Freedom Fighter Mention – Reflects on themes of patriotism and freedom fighters that appear in Nahar’s works.

Sarkari Manthan – Maharana Pratap statue tribute – Reports community events inspired by figures researched by Vijay Nahar.

Sahitya Nama – Maharana Pratap articles – Discusses literary works on Maharana Pratap, including those by Nahar.

Udaipur Kiran – Book review: Pali Naresh Akheraj Songara – Reviews a book authored by Vijay Nahar, showcasing his reach in historical documentation.

Amar Ujala – Book on Modi and Jashodaben – Reports on Nahar’s controversial yet widely discussed book on Narendra Modi's early life.

Pathey Kan – Maharana Pratap death anniversary – Further evidence of Nahar’s engagement with historical storytelling in public discourse.

OneIndia Hindi – Book on Narendra Modi – A news piece discussing the content and release of Nahar’s book on Modi.

Hindi Kunj – Article on Bhoja – Provides literary context for historical kings such as Bhoja, also studied by Nahar.

Dainik Bhaskar (Mat) – Historical works in Pali – Features Vijay Nahar as a local historian contributing to regional identity.

Patrika – Maharana Pratap Jayanti, women’s role – Cultural event tied to figures researched and published by Nahar.

Public Live – Local event coverage – Mentions contributions of historians including Nahar in community awareness.

Dainik Bhaskar (Rohida) – Need for research on Rao Sinhaji Rathore – Features local historians including Nahar advocating for deeper research.

Surabhi Saloni – Historical commemoration article – Echoes Nahar’s themes of valor and historical justice.

Press Note – Educational event report – Discusses academic contributions by Vijay Nahar in educational forums.

Pathey Kan – Historical pieces on Pratap – Platform hosting several pieces aligned with Nahar's themes.

Pathey Kan (alternate) – Akbar vs Maharana Pratap – Reflects on contrasting historical figures often discussed in Vijay Nahar’s writings.

BJP Library Catalog – Vijay Nahar books in BJP Library – Lists Nahar’s books held in BJP-associated library catalog, confirming institutional presence.

Jagran Josh – List of books on PM Modi – Includes Vijay Nahar among notable authors writing about PM Modi.

Amazon – Vasundhara Raje Aur Viksit Rajasthan – One of Vijay Nahar’s published books on Rajasthan politics, available through major retailers.

Amazon – Haldighati Yuddha Vijayeta Maharana Pratap – Another key historical publication by Nahar, highlighting the Battle of Haldighati.

Sahitya Kunj – Vijay Nahar Author Profile – A central repository of Nahar’s literary contributions and publications.

Most of the sources cited to support the notability of Vijay Nahar are from Hindi-language newspapers and online publications. However, these are established and widely circulated media outlets in India, such as Dainik Bhaskar, Amar Ujala, Rajasthan Patrika, Punjab Kesari, Jansatta, and the Hindi edition of Times of India. These outlets are considered reliable sources under Wikipedia guidelines for regional and vernacular coverage.

The references include interviews, book reviews, coverage of public recognitions and awards, listings of published works, and inclusion of his books in institutional libraries. Several sources document his contributions as a biographer of public figures like Narendra Modi, Vasundhara Raje, and Maharana Pratap. Many of these sources offer English summaries or have accessible translations. Gujjar.rudraa (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat none of these sources cover this person in depth, lack WP:SIGCOV also most of these sources are non reliable TheSlumPanda (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gujjar.rudraa have you edited only this person page since creation of your wiki account ?TheSlumPanda (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to hear from more editors willing to research the sources offered in the article and discussion. Would the two editors who have participated so far please take a step back and let other editors weigh in? Please let them comment without adding your opinions to their arguments. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 15 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vasundhara Raje Aur Viksit Rajasthan

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

Orignal creator of this article was blocked for WP:COI and WP:PROMO. This article is also nothing more than a promotion. This book is not significantly covered by secondary sources in depth. Only source i found is the Dainik bhaskar, which is actually not about the book and it is about the launch of book (as it is about chief minister so it got some attention). Clearly fails WP:NBOOK. TheSlumPanda (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 8 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!} 02:40, 15 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.

Helman Palije

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

Declined prod. Was eliminated in first bout. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Olympics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malawi at the 1988 Summer Olympics: As I suggested when I declined the PROD, redirect as a WP:ATD. No WP:SIGCOV is cited and a cursory G News/Books search didn't come up with anything. Let'srun (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malawi at the 1988 Summer Olympics - These machine generated non notable olympic competitor stubs are all trending redirect to the relevant Olympics page. Instead of using PROD, could these be redirected under WP:BLAR instead, as that will save a lot of unnecessary time at AfD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For competitors who only appeared at one Olympics, I think that is a viable way to move forward. Let'srun (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given how many have turned out to be notable when inspected close enough, I don't think redirecting them all en masse is appropriate. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A BLAR takes me considerably more effort than was put into creating these. We are not talking about en masse. This is a manual process that follows editor review of sourcing, establishing the redirect is not controversial, that the article is problematic and sourcing unavailable. It is simply reverted should anyone object. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A BLAR takes me considerably more effort than was put into creating these – really? I could BLAR one of these in like, 10 seconds if I wanted to. If you're actually looking for sources I'd be more supportive (though I'd still not entirely support); unfortunately many editors who try to delete Olympics articles don't do that, which is why I don't like the idea of giving a 'green light' to redirection. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even checking sources for one minute would be more time than it took for these articles to be created. Let'srun (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Bob's Wonderland

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

Non-notable restaurant (formerly a ShowBizz pizza location, now independent) that does not appear to have any SIGCOV outside of local media profiles. nf utvol (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Entertainment, and West Virginia. nf utvol (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Local media profiles" appears to be an inaccurate description. Several of the cited sources are news stories, not profiles, and at least two of the news sources are non-local: USA Today is a national news source, and while WOAY-TV is from West Virginia, Oak Hill, West Virginia isn't local—I live just a few miles from the restaurant, though I've never been there, and we've never gotten WOAY in this area; our local ABC affiliate is WCHS-TV. Oak Hill isn't part of the local area; it's more than 90 miles away. The coverage looks like what you would expect for a local attraction, and is more than you'd see for some that meet the minimum standards for notability. The fact that it was once part of a chain—many years ago, apparently—does not make it non-notable as an independently-operated restaurant with a distinctive identity. P Aculeius (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The USA Today article doesn't mention Billy Bob's Wonderland at all. I think the WOAY and WCHS coverage still would fall under local interest stories. The DCist article is the only one that really would satisfy non-local coverage, and I am not sure that passes the reliable sources test. nf utvol (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matt (gamer)

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

Fails WP:BIO. The interviews sourced in the article at present are by reliable sources, but this is arguably routine seasonal coverage. This player did not achieve any significant results during his career; when he was in a tier-one league, his team never made top-three, peaking at fourth place (semifinals). Yue🌙 01:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and United States of America. Yue🌙 01:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only demonstrated notability is joining a tier-one league without significant results so there isn't a lot of information about him that can be documented. So many gamers named Matt around the world and this guy gets to be considered the definitive Matt gamer, if only he had a more significant career. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Matt Elento ("Matt") competed in the NA LCS, a fully professional league, and has reliable, independent coverage from ESPN, invenglobal.com, tsn.ca, Polygon, DBLTAP, thenextweb.com etc. Goodboyjj (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I contend, as I did in previous discussions of other LCS players, that the coverage presented is routine and not in-depth. There are around 300 players who have competed in the LCS, most of whom have some routine coverage (e.g. rosters swaps, season interviews) by esports and esports-adjacent outlets. Not all these players deserve an article though; most of have never made it to the top-three, many not even to playoffs, and most have never won individual honours either (e.g. MVP, all-pro team, rookie of the split, etc.)

My argument is therefore:

Yue🌙 16:58, 16 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 02:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hard (gamer)

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

Fails WP:BIO. No in-depth coverage in reliable sources; given sources are routine coverage. This player did not achieve any significant results during his career; when he was in a tier-one league with Echo Fox, his team never made playoffs. Yue🌙 01:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Canada. Yue🌙 01:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the person not meet general GNG--Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:49, 17 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 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) Let'srun (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Montz

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

I can't find any meaningful WP:SIGCOV on this player that isn't attached to a club or academy for which he played or coached—i.e. nothing independent. Anwegmann (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Florida, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, appears to (weakly) pass GNG, see e.g. this, this, this and this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 22:08, 15 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 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 withdrawn‎. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald and Sheila Broflovski

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG, and not quite sure if I can find any SIGCOV after doing BEFORE. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If found to be NN, this either needs to me merged to either or both of Kyle Broflovski and List of South Park characters. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per the sources I, um, found in the previous short-lived AfD and had long since forgotten about. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided in the last AfD. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Oops, I guess there is an existing afd that already happened before with sources. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 10:53, 15 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 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Narendra Chaudhary (soldier)

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

Does not meet criteria for notability, reliability, or reliable sources. The single English language source is of extremely poor quality. Audrey Woolf (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and India. Audrey Woolf (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In case this page was kept, please move this article to Narendra Chaudhary, as the page is currently red-linked and current title includes unnessesary disambiguation. Thanks and no opinion on the AFD itself. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Basic google searches didn't find anything beyond what is already in the article, a couple of marginal sources. There is not enough to support a biography. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:19, 14 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!} 00:53, 15 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 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luciano Delbono

(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. The current references in the article are comprised of references from clubs and leagues the subject played for, and are not independent. Let'srun (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Finland, and North Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:37, 15 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 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 01:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Avila

(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) 00:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, and Nevada. Let'srun (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't have enough reliable sources or they are just mentions.Darkm777 (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Fail WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jbt89 (talk) 07:31, 19 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.

[1] Cox, Charlotte (2015-09-02). "Monster cargo plane descends on Manchester Airport". Retrieved 2025-04-20. The flight organised by Ability with Innovation contractors drew at big crowd to Altrincham's Runway Visitor Park.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[y588-2] "Undiagnosed diabetes surging in Chennai, a study by Kauvery Hospital shows". BusinessLine. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.

[l629-3] "'Diabetes on Wheels', an initiative of Kauvery Hospital highlights gaps in early detection and calls for improved awareness". The Hindu. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.

[i488-4] "Kauvery Hospital releases data on the Diabetes Prevalence in Chennai through a cross sectional study". Expressnews. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.

[t901-5] "12-Year-Old Girl Undergoes Life-Saving Heart Surgery at Kauvery Hospital, Vadapalani". The Wire. 2 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.

[b612-6] Standard, Business (25 March 2025). "Kauvery Hospital Honored with Prestigious CFBP Jamnalal Bajaj Award for Fair Business Practices". Business News, Finance News, India News, Stock Markets BSE/NSE News, SENSEX, NIFTY, Personal Finance News. Retrieved 17 April 2025. {{cite web}}: |first= has generic name (help)

[i773-7] "Kauvery Hospital introduces Mako Robotic Joint Replacement system". ETHealthworld.com. 17 January 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.

[i743-8] "Kauvery Hospital Successfully Conducts a grand ECG Masterclass workshop". The Wire. 8 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.

[j836-9] The Hindu Bureau (31 January 2025). "Kauvery Hospital receives Joint Commission International accreditation". The Hindu. Retrieved 17 April 2025.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]