Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 08	April 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Reginaldo Ndong

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

Declined prod. Whilst it looks like a lot of sources, 8 of the 9 are databases or results listing and not enough to meet WP:SPORTSBASIC. The only third party source is this one and is a small mention and not SIGCOV, the source is about the more famous Mark Lewis-Francis. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naji Mubarak

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

Declined prod. The article is only based on databases and requires indepth third party sources to meet WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Kuwait. LibStar (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I found a source I think is SIGCOV on the subject in Al Qabas, page 23 here: [1] Unfortunately the OCR is horrendous, but this is the translation of the first part of the article with DeepL proving it provides coverage on the subject: "2 Alah Shah 5 the athletics machine in the tournament and came asp the stakes which was established in 1913 160 Q 166 and also beat the Mexican injury winning mare Razza Aa Aa Dai Ci and is located at the center of the center of the r Aa Aa Aa 16-7 and Ali Al Anzushefi Akim defeat and against 7 wins in the race Der Baksar Baksar III in Azmi, Turkey for the third Madjaba Madad III. To diagnose and evaluate cases: Players to Topas 161-149. Two draws ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ games while China's Sa'abiya came second in the 11m hurdles (the height of the side of the physical therapy devices to advance), and Digiz had only a NEE Epsom ۔ ے Amir ے Ami ۔ ۔ ۔ ̓ ̓ in the 91cm hurdle). 0 team mare Heliette Nah in the gold medal race and Sasdol Naji Abdullah Mubarak in the bronze medal race. He had difficulty exchanging punches in the Yarmouk heptathlon here on Wednesday...." Given that it's an exact name match and talking about hurdles, it's definitely about the subject.

This paper is from 1980, which would mean the subject was only 16-17 when being written about by a major national paper here. We know from WP:RS that he continued to improve for at least four years following that (likely more considering we don't have good Arab Championships coverage) including a PB in 1983, which is far more than we know about most other Kuwaiti Olympians from the era. Due to the source and WP:NEXIST, I think a keep decision would be justified. --Habst (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing I'd bring up is, considering the poor OCR quality, how many hits in Al Qabas or other newspapers about the subject are we missing just because his name was transcribed by a computer incorrectly? Having an Arabic speaker to help search for variations or common scannos of the name would help a lot. --Habst (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bahro Suryoyo

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:N and WP:GNG, search for sources find mostly social media pages that discuss the magazine and others that mention it in passing without much detail (as well as the website for the magazine) Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, its website has a risky .Nu extension. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The English Commentary of the Holy Quran

AfDs for this article:

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

I do not find the notability of this article per WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Additionally, it has been tagged for notability since 2016. The book primarily cites itself as a source, which can be described as WP:OR.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 19:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 19:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find it being cited here [2], but that's hardly enough to show notability. The sources in the article are primary. I don't see enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KGNG-LD

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

Non-notable LPTV; questionable sourcing. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Nevada. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electrum (software)

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

The subject fails to meet Wikipedia’s general notability guideline. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources is not demonstrated. The only references are a couple of wallet reviews and technical mentions which may be insufficient per [WP:GNG] and [WP:ORGCRITE]. In particular, there is little to no coverage in mainstream media beyond routine crypto-sector coverage. Per [WP:NONCRYPTO], sources solely from cryptocurrency-focused outlets or passing mentions cannot establish notability Pollia (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Pollia (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clovis Chikonga

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

Not notable crimes, not really anything else. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Australia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air India data breach

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. Should be merged to Air India. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and India. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

50 Greatest Album Covers

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

No reliable sources cover this TV special, hence nom'ing under WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE check pulled up only forums discussing the list, and obviously we don't do WP:UGC. I would be in favor of retention if a few examples of in-depth discussion of the special in, say, some magazine or TV guide archive unknown to me, was found and qualified as a WP:RS. /over.throws/^✎ 23:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Television. /over.throws/^✎ 23:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Kiaya Campbell

AfDs for this article:

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

Last discussion three months ago was no consensus. The single keep vote, the page creator, has now been blocked as a sockmaster. Regardless of how sad this does not pass WP:NEVENT and most sources used are unreliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Colorado. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Was charged in 2017 [3], trial in 2019 [4]. Nothing since. Even what's used in the article are mostly non-RS, 14 and 21 are flagged as green, so reliable, but those just mostly report on the news. The vast majority of RS don't seen to cover this. Oaktree b (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Murder of Andreen McDonald

AfDs for this article:

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

Last discussion (three months ago) was no consensus. This is still not notable per WP:NEVENT, the coverage is not in depth or particularly sustained (it popped up again during the trial, but then fell off again after). PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Texas. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:48, 9 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. Found more sources. Curse spelling variations. (non-admin closure) PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Mohrman

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

No reliable sources to prove notability. Every source is news reporting from right when it happened or unreliable. There is a contemporary "book" cited here but it appears to be the trial reporting in print form. Much of this material is uncited. Also this should be written as a "Murder of" article - if sources are found to prove notability, that can be fixed, but I do not think it is. There is sigcov in one book from 1914 (several decades after these events) but that is only one source. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Pennsylvania. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:33, 9 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.

Cassius Longinus

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

There are only two legit entries. The rest are partial matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Corich

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:NCREATIVE. Simply having mastering/remastering credits with no significant, independent coverage of the subject satisfies neither criteria. His own books and his own interview as a critic are not independent sources (and presumably don't cover himself, either). DePRODed by request. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Engineering, and United Kingdom. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On Wikipedia, he is currently listed in roughly 40 albums, usually as a remastering engineer and usually with colleague Mike Brown: [5]. There is one album with dubious notability where he is listed as executive producer. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Neha Hiremath

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

Fails NEVENT, not enough sustained or in depth coverage to prove notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and India. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lock It Up (Whethan song)

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

Finding no articles via google news about the song. There is a hit on EDM.com, but that is about the song's album and not about the song. Charts dont equal notability, and I can't find any other coverage besides this. Locust member (talk) 21:31, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harun Izhar

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

The current article cites a total of nine references, eight of which focus solely on a single incident—his arrest and release. The remaining one is about his father. This is insufficient to meet the criteria of WP:GNG and does not establish the subject's notability as a Wp:Nscholar, writer, or religious figure.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 21:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Bangladesh. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 21:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Budd Wiener Park

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

Regional park that fails WP:GNG and is WP:MILL, All the sources I could find are local papers that briefly mention the park. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Erin Fleming

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

Subject is not notable. Upon searching up the subject, no reliable, independent sources can be found. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Texas. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 9 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 WP:SNOW keep; meets WP:NPOL‎. -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Darin Chappell

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

Not seeing WP:SIGCOV; current content can easily be folded into Chappell Roan. Laun chba ller 19:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I started this article last year unaware of the Chappell Roan connection. Although it is a stub I believe the article can stand alone as he is a Missouri state legislator in his own right. Moondragon21 (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Every member of a state or national legislature is notable, no matter how weak the sources are. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Missouri. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As mentioned, subject passes WP:NPOL as an American state legislator. Curbon7 (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe that the article could be expanded, but as others have mentioned, the subject is inherently notable with WP:NPOL as a Missouri state legislator.

WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes NPOL#1. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 21:12, 9 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.

Chris Macdonald (scientist)

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

Fails WP:SIRS and so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ExitMundi.nl

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

Apparently defunct website. After a prod almost twenty years ago, a bit of uncited and unsourced content was slapped on carelessly, with some evidence of COI or at least NPOV violation. I am inclined to say that notability was never established. Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- somewhat confused by this nomination: four reliable news sources are cited, even though one is a 404. That establishes clear notability by the GNG -- it is irrelevant whether the website is now defunct. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbei

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

Contested WP:BLAR (formerly to List of One Piece characters): Fails WP:GNG. None of the sources cover the subject in significant detail, and a WP:BEFORE check did not find RS that was not extensive fancruft. /over.throws/^✎ 17:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Anime and manga. /over.throws/^✎ 17:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jimbei is a main character in one of the best-selling works of fiction of all time and clearly meets the standards of WP:Notability. Several works such as Dragon Ball which sell less than One Piece have far more Wikipedia pages of their main characters on Wikipedia. Additionally, Jimbei is a more significant character than several Straw Hats who already have Wikipedia pages. --Plumber (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A character being important in-universe does not dictate a character's real world notability, which is what WP:N is based on. None of the sources indicate importance, as he doesn't seem particularly popular based on what rankings exist, and the Gamescooper source seems unreliable given its Terms of Use page says it doesn't engage in fact checking. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot think of a main character in any of the best-selling works of fiction of all time who does not have a Wikipedia page. Additionally, the page quality has no bearing on WP:Notability. Deleting or redirecting this page would be out of line with past Wikipedia practice. Plumber (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Plumber:. Notability is not inherited thus despite One Piece being notable it does not mean that this is also notable. Importance of the character in the series is not a good argument for notability, either. WP:GNG states that there is a lot of sources (usually three is enough) talking about the subject in depth to be considered notable. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there are other Straw Hat characters with notability problems, then they might have to be looked at as well. In particular, I feel re-redirecting your rework of Brook (One Piece) would also be preferable. I mean all this to say that I would not oppose taking Jimbei's, Brook's, or any other "not notable enough for their own article" character's information to add onto List of One Piece characters as to not completely wipe out your work. /over.throws/^✎ 01:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Redirect per nom. No indication of independent notability, and no sources that seem to exist per the nom's BEFORE. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Redirect per nom and Lock, if recreated again. Sources given are Lack WP:SIGCOV or Non-independent. This source seems dubious to me, author seems no crediblity for reliability nor the website has a transparent editorial policy., nevertheless, one source does not cut it. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And then it rained for seven days

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

Fails WP:NSONG a before turned up nothing, sources in the article include a dead unrelaible source, a live unrelaible source, an interview and user generated site Olliefant (she/her) 17:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Ireland. Olliefant (she/her) 17:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Music for Dead Birds. While seemingly not notable enough for a standalone article, there's information and sources there that should be preserved. Vegantics (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Music for Dead Birds#Discography. As WP:ATD. (Per nom and from my own WP:BEFORE search, have to agree that there's insufficient independent coverage to warrant a standalone title. However, covering the album WP:WITHIN the band article is probably reasonable. With, per WP:MUSICOUTCOMES and WP:SUBNOT, a redirect retained.) Guliolopez (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rocco Meliambro

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

Contested WP:BLAR: initially BLAR'd by User:Onel5969 due to lack of in-depth coverage. I agree; found no sources that covered the subject in significant detail, and all sources on the page cover his group's acquisition of PornHub's operator rather than the subject itself. /over.throws/^✎ 17:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. /over.throws/^✎ 17:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or restore redirect to Ethical Capital Partners as an ATD. Simply not enough in-depth coverage of the person to show that they pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Switzer

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

Doesn't reach WP:NACADEMIC; the two news articles relating to his death in a traffic accident aren't enough to demonstrate sustained coverage. Otherwise, it's referenced with primary sources of Switzer's own work. Klbrain (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New York. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The primary sources are enough to satisfy criterion #1 of WP:NACADEMIC (. Three of them were single-author, invited scientific articles in the most renowned and widely read journals in their subspecialties (Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine for pathology, Circulation for cardiology, and The New England Journal of Medicine for the entire medical field), and had a substantial impact on the way medicine is practiced. Switzer was notable enough to have warranted inclusion even without his obituaries in newspapers, although those were the source of his personal information that was not available in the scientific articles. (Disclosure - I created the article.) Ira Leviton (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is for another person [6], that gets coverage... I don't see much for this Sam, we do have confirmation of his journal papers in Gscholar. I don't see that his work on the after effects in Hiroshima were notable, with only a blip when they were published (I suppose it's not a bad thing that we've never had to study it again), but I'm not showing notability. Appears to have had a low citation index, but it's been a while so studies on radiation after-effects likely don't get used much. I don't see that the awards won add much to notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rainer Strecker

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

I was unable to find significant coverage about this German actor. His name appears in many movie databases, but that is not enough to establish notability. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Germany. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion unnecessary Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WhoIsCentreLeft It is kind of a waste of time, or IDK. Just not a big issue. And this article clearly isn't a case of Vandalism Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WhoIsCentreLeft Wikipedia can survive with articles on Non Notable People if it is written in a NPOV Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are very wrong... According to rules of Wikipedia, if an article fails WP:GNG, it must be deleted, even if its not vandalism or written in neutral tone. Also, non-notable and unsourced articles like this decrease the quality of Wikipedia. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WhoIsCentreLeft Two Questions. One, isn't this just a guidline? It does say on Wikipedia:Notability These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do notlimit the content of an article or list, though notability is commonly used as an inclusion criterion for lists (for example for listing out a school's alumni). For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons. Second, how does it decrease the quality of Wikipedia? Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:DEL, articles that fail notability guidelines are subject to deletion. This article violates Wikipedia policy so it should be deleted. Keeping articles that violate Wikipedia's policy definitely harms its quality. I hope you understand. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WhoIsCentreLeft I understand the policies, but I was asking about the point of the policies on notability Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WhoIsCentreLeft I don't think this: "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):" specifically says "It must be deleted". What does? Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: also could not find reliable sources discussing the subject. /over.throws/^✎ 17:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added audiobook work and references which brings the article inside WP:GNG. Inwind (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's additional material in the German Wikipedia as well. I tagged it for that purpose. --Jahaza (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding Dash

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

Obviously fails GNG, and per BEFORE. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 16:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 16:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom re GNG: sole IGN source is archived database entry with no sigcov. The one semi-viable RS I could find was a paywalled Goshen News review that I can't read. Regardless, one source would not suffice. /over.throws/^✎ 17:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wayback Machine got the article for me, looks fine. IgelRM (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Ritter

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

Craig Ritter is a lineman never played a down of NFL football, and he barely played much of any other professional football. He played in five games in the 1995 CFL season for the Memphis Mad Dogs, per another source, and was briefly a starter on their O-line, and he played arena football. But there's no significant coverage of him at all—and I scoured the Orange County, Phoenix, Memphis, and other papers for it. That's a WP:GNG failure. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 16:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, Arizona, and California. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 16:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My searches have not so far turned up any SIGCOV. The commonness of the name makes searching difficult. Aside from playing at Arizona State (1991-92) and pro (1995-98), I also found references to a Craig Ritter being a football coach at Defiance College c. 2009 -- may or may not be the same person. Cbl62 (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All I'm finding right now are transactional announcements and brief mentions like [[7]]. Unless someone else can find some WP:SIGCOV, this is probably a delete. Let'srun (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Overgrow

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

Unnotable. I looked it up and didn't find any RS, just Facebook groups with fewer than 500 members. Althistwikibox (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian Assassins

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

Tag team that lasted a year. Chief problem is WP:GNG: main sources are database entries, with a WP:BEFORE check pulling up nothing substantial. Two books are cited with this article: one page from an overview of WWE wrestling in the 80s (Shields: inaccessible on Google Books, but it would be hard to argue significant coverage from a single page overviewing an era of pro wrestling), and another broad book covering the history of pro wrestling. Nothing standalone is the concern with these cites. /over.throws/^✎ 16:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and United States of America. /over.throws/^✎ 16:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of James Whelan

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

This murder fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. It clearly has no significant impact on the world, only British news sources covered this murder and not for a long period of time. The murder was forgotten within a month, no sources beyond April/May 2022. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and United Kingdom. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes, no coverage past 2022 that I can find either. Appears to not have had a lasting impact. NOTNEWS. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of initial coverage due to the relative rarity of gun violence in Ireland, but no lasting coverage or indications of wider impacts of the event. nf utvol (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS. Spleodrach (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a recap of news articles without secondary coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is limited to news reports in the one month vicinity of the shooting. No enduring notability, fails WP:NOTNEWS. Flip^and Flopped ツ 01:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Co-operatives and Mutuals Canada

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

The cooperative must adhere to NCORP and must have some reliable sources and untrivial media coverage. But here it is not present. Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tiki Pets

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

No reliable coverage per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) either on the page or across the web (wp before). Not notable company. Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Companies. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that whether or not this is actually notable OP is wrong... There are reliable sources, both on the page and across the web... Whether or not we should have a stand alone page or merge to General Mills or an associated page is still an open question and I would probably lean towards merge but the assertion that no reliable sources exist is patently false. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back I only see across the web General Mills acquires Whitebridge Pet Brands for $1.45 billion, General Mills to acquire Whitebridge Pet Brands for $1.45 bln and similar ones Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And you don't see Tiki Pets in those articles? Because I do... And the sources appear reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
reliable sources means reliable independent in-depth coverage. Passing mentions don't count Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources means reliable sources. If you mean independent in-depth coverage you have to say that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! I changed the initial rationale for deletion. Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its still wrong, you need to add significant, in-depth, something like that before reliable. I don't think you understand that trivial and routine coverage can still be reliable, it just doesn't count towards notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CaDA Bricks

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

Unnotable brand line from an unnotable manufacturer. WP:GNG failures are from an exclusive reliance on primary sources and lack of notability. No reliable sources found during WP:BEFORE check. /over.throws/^✎ 16:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys and China. /over.throws/^✎ 16:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nutellagate

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

Coverage is restricted to a 48 hour period, fails WP:SUSTAINED. The only content that could conceivably contribute to notability published after the initial burst was this article from Het Parool this February. The entirety of this mention is an inaccurate summary of this Wikipedia page, including a link. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 15:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and New York. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Columbia University: a brief mention there is fine, there is no sustained coverage, 10 plus years later. Interesting anecdote perhaps. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Gianakos-Safos Collection

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

A private archive that fails WP:N and WP:SIGCOV. A search sources shows one local news article that says that the archive was the inspiration for a documentary (not the subject of it)[8] and a writeup in Who's Who.[9] Article created by an editor with a (now) acknowledged COI. Vegantics (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing comes up in Gscholar, Books or Jstor. I can only find primary sourcing, suggesting this isn't a notable academic endeavour. If no journals have used it/written about it, might be TOOSOON. This seems like PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information: I just checked Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and Marquis Who's Who is not considered a reliable source. Vegantics (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great South Bay Giant Horseshoe Crab

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

Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline.

Article is about an internet rumor. The only reference relevant to the rumor is the original April Fools article that [supposedly] kicked off the rumor. AFAICT, there are no reliable sources that cover the rumor. — hike395 (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — hike395 (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources 2,3 and 4 aren't about this meme thing, I wouldn't consider the rest notable enough. This could be a small few sentences in an article about the town/area maybe. I don't see enough for a full article here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, Great South Bay, Fire Island, and Fire Island National Seashore already exist. — hike395 (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I wish there was any WP:SIGCOV but the only source that mentions the Great South Bay Giant Horseshoe Crab at all is the WP:PRIMARY April Fool's Day prank article from this year. A search for other sources yielded nothing. Vegantics (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Bennett (businessman)

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

I am the subject of the article and do not believe it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Additionally, I have personal and professional concerns regarding the accuracy, relevance, and publication of this content. As a private individual, I kindly ask for your consideration in removing the page. JRFB1 (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be sourced to trade magazines, some primary sourcing. I don't see notability for this individual. I can't find any sourcing we could use either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Taylor

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Shuqin

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and while a scholar search does show several works which are well cited, they are not in this person's field of study, so are most likely a different individual. Fails WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Taiwan. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has anyone read the Chinese version? Bearian (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Li, Chin-chun 李金駿. "新生新聲新的台灣視野十一日成大台灣文學鼎談新一代學者談台灣文學研究的回顧與前瞻" [New Generation, New Voice, New Taiwanese Literary Perspective. 11 April: National Cheng Kung University Hosts a Taiwanese Literature Symposium on the Past and Future of Taiwanese Literary Studies] (in Chinese). National Cheng Kung University. Archived from the original on 2014-09-03. Retrieved 2025-04-06.
  The article notes: "柳書琴教授、陳建忠教授兩位學者任教於靜宜大學中文系，和台文所游勝冠教授一樣，都是出身清華大學中文系博士班的前後期同學。出身歷史系的柳書琴教授，自碩士班以來即專注戰爭期台灣文學的研究，博士論文更以《福爾摩沙》作家群在東京留學時期的文學活動為對象，史料蒐集之完整、田調功夫下得之深，無人能出其右。"
  From Google Translate: "Professor Liu Shuqin and Professor Chen Jianzhong both teach in the Department of Chinese at Providence University. Like Professor You Shengguan from the Taiwan Literature Institute, they were former and current classmates in the doctoral program of the Chinese Department at Tsinghua University. Professor Liu Shuqin, who graduated from the Department of History, has focused on the study of wartime Taiwanese literature since her master's program. Her doctoral dissertation was based on the literary activities of the "Formosa" writers while they were studying in Tokyo. No one can match her in terms of the completeness of her historical data collection and the depth of her field research. ... Liu Shuqin, whose mother is from the Ma Yuan Dan community, both returned to the tribe to assist and even initiated new research projects."
2. Hua, Meng-ching 花孟璟. "布農族丹社傳統領域調查秀成果 91歲耆老感動：這是我的家" [Bunun Tribe Danse Traditional Territory Survey Shows Results, 91-Year-Old Elder Moved: This Is My Home]. Liberty Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-04-06. Retrieved 2025-04-06.
  The article notes: "共有7名青年走完全程；擁有一半丹社群血統的清華大學台灣文學所教授柳書琴進行日本集團移住史調查，調查成果展今天回到馬遠社區舉辦，... 母親是馬遠丹社群人的柳書琴，2人都重返部落協助，還開啟新的研究計畫。"
  From Google Translate: "A total of 7 young people completed the journey; Professor Liu Shuqin of the Department of Taiwanese Literature at Tsinghua University, who is half Dan community descent, conducted a survey on the history of Japanese group immigration, and the survey results exhibition was held in Mayuan Community today."
  The article notes: "柳書琴也說，她從小在馬遠生活、直到11歲才離開，發生遺骨事件後，她回到馬遠，「不管怎樣都要跟族人在一起」，並開始採錄部落阿公阿嬤們的故事。她說，從前，馬遠只是她回來探親、渡假的地方，現在已是學術研究重點，年初還帶20歲兒子加入尋根隊伍，遺骨事件讓馬遠的丹社人重新連結在一起，希望成為部落團結、文化復興的轉捩點。"
  From Google Translate: "Liu Shuqin also said that she lived in Mayuan since she was a child and did not leave until she was 11 years old. After the remains incident, she returned to Mayuan, "to be with my people no matter what," and began to record the stories of the grandparents in the tribe. She said that in the past, Mayuan was just a place she came back to visit relatives and for vacation, but now it has become the focus of academic research. At the beginning of the year, she brought her 20-year-old son to join the root-seeking team. The remains incident has reconnected the Danshe people of Mayuan, and she hopes it will become a turning point for tribal unity and cultural revival."
3. Hoshina, Hironobu 星名宏修 (2010). "書評柳書琴著『荊棘之道--台湾旅日青年的文学活動與文化抗争』 (特集インドネシア・朝鮮・「満州」・台湾)" [Book Review: Liu Shuqin's "The Thorny Road--Literary Activities and Cultural Conflicts of Young Travelers in Taiwan and Japan" (Special Issue: Indonesia, Korea, "Manchuria", Taiwan)]. 植民地文化研究 : 資料と分析 [Colonial Cultural Studies: Materials and Analysis] (in Japanese). No. 9. pp. 173–175. Archived from the original on 2025-04-06. Retrieved 2025-04-06.
4. Shimomura, Sakujiro 下村作次郎 (July 2021). "書評柳書琴主編・陳萬益總顧問『日治時期台灣現代文學辭典』(聯經出版、2019年)" [Book Review Liu Shuqin, Chief Editor, Chen Wanyi, Chief Consultant, "Dictionary of Modern Taiwanese Literature during the Japanese Occupation" (Linking Publishing, 2019)]. 天理臺灣學報 [Journal of Taiwan University] (in Japanese). No. 30. Archived from the original on 2025-04-06. Retrieved 2025-04-06.
5. Yuan, Shu-chia 阮淑雅 (December 2007). "寫在大東亞聖戰之外－論吳漫沙連載於《風月報》之〈桃花江〉(1937-1939)" [Written Outside the Greater East Asia Holy War – A Discussion on Wu Mansha's Serial "Peach Blossom River" (1937-1939) Published in Fengyue Daily]. 中極學刊 [Zhongji Xuekan] (in Chinese). No. 6. doi:10.29935/ZJXK.200712.0001. Archived from the original on 2025-04-06. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Airiti Library [Wikidata].
  The abstract notes: "此外筆者從柳書琴的研究中發現到《風月報》內容以都會女性相關議題爲大宗，重要寫作者分布在臺北，"
  From Google Translate: "In addition, the author discovered from Liu Shuqin's research that the content of Fengyuebao mainly focused on issues related to urban women, and its important writers were located in Taipei."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Liu Shuqin (traditional Chinese: 柳書琴; simplified Chinese: 柳书琴) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Cunard's sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Stephen (dog trainer)

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

A promo piece for a dog trainer based on a lifestyle blog, lots of in-house material, the odd passing mention, and nothing else. The man himself has not been the subject of any substantial coverage, and what tidbits there are have been spread out into what looks like a massive LinkedIn profile. Fails WP:GNG. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Star (https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2025/04/04/high-time-dog-owners-are-sensitised-to-the-importance-of-obedience-training)

The other are physical from The Star (English Newspaper in Malaysia), China Press (Chinese Newspaper in Malaysia), Sin Chew (Chinese Newspaper in Malaysia), Harian Watan (Malay Newspaper in Malaysia) --need idea to include physical/print version newspaper

Spanizh fly (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of sources are from print version newspaper (physical), please advice on how can I include. Spanizh fly (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems PROMO. This was all I could find for sourcing [10] and it's mostly this individual talking about the business. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove the business part and retain the individual part for the sake of experience in the field of Dog Training Spanizh fly (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per otb ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are in physical newspaper, how shall include the physical newspaper please advice, Thank you Spanizh fly (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s good to know! What are the newspapers? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Star (https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2025/04/04/high-time-dog-owners-are-sensitised-to-the-importance-of-obedience-training)

The other are physical from The Star (English Newspaper in Malaysia), China Press (Chinese Newspaper in Malaysia), Sin Chew (Chinese Newspaper in Malaysia), Harian Watan (Malay Newspaper in Malaysia) --need idea to include physical/print version newspaper Spanizh fly (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Momo Thomas

AfDs for this article:

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

Unnotable gridiron football player. No college awards, no NFL games. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references identified by Cbl62 at the first AFD from 2021: Part 1/part 2, part 1/part 2, and this, this, this, and this. These provide non-routine SIGCOV to allow for passage of GNG. Frank Anchor 12:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Along with two more sources with SIGCOV identified at the first AFD. Frank Anchor 18:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Eagle Flight 5401

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

Has been turned into a redirect multiple times by several editors (myself included back in 2019). Fails WP:SUSTAINED, and normally aviation incidents which result in zero fatalities are best served as redirects. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Puerto Rico. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - specifically to American Eagle (airline brand)#Accidents and incidents (where it was until recently) It's a run-of-the-mill incident; prop planes bounce down runways all the time, causing injuries, absent any sustained coverage or any claim in the article for notability this should be a redirect. JeffUK 12:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Eagle (airline brand)#Accidents and incidents as an alternative to deletion – Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have significant, in-depth, nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just added that the accident resulted in changes to procedures and regulations affecting airlines, and so has an lasting effect: The accident let to inclusion of "bounced landing recovery techniques" in pilot trainings. (Note to nominator rationale: It is not a good AFD reasoning: Has been turned into a redirect multiple times by several editors (myself included back in 2019) The article includedes now much more references, is improved and is in better shape compared to the previous time the nominator redirected the page.) 95.98.65.177 (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What proof is there that there were lasting effects? Just because recommendations were issued doesn't necessarily mean that they were ever implemented. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviationwikiflight:: Recommendations were as good as directly implemented: "On September 25, 2004, Executive Airlines incorporated bounced landing recovery techniques in its Airplane Operating Manual (AOM). The bounced landing recovery guidance states the following: In the event the aircraft should bounce after landing, hold or re-establish a normal landing attitude and immediately add power as necessary to control the rate of descent. When using this recovery technique, exercise extreme caution not to increase the pitch attitude above normal as this will only increase the height of the bounce and may cause entry into stall warning. DO NOT push over, as this will only cause another bounce and damage the nose gear. If there is any doubt as to a safe recovery, the captain will call for and conduct an immediate go-around. Apply go-around power and fly the Missed Approach/Rejected Landing Profile. DO NOT retract the Landing Gear until a positive rate of climb is established because a second touchdown may occur during the recovery. ". Next to that, when I Google it, I see the topic reached a lot of attentention in pilot training now, 2 pages I opened for instance pilotmall and pilotinstitute. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page needs more references. ANd, also this week I have had two articles that I originiated and had been sent to redirect reappear as main space articles, this one and the Sergio Blass one. I wonder how that happens? It was not me!!! (lol) Jeanette the dancer Martin {*wink*) 10:22, 9 April, 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Mellon

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

This is an elegantly WP:REFBOMBed BLP on a UFO True Believer (TB). In that respect, it stands out from the BLPs of many TBs. On closer examination, however:

The essence of his biography is exclusively sourced to non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources like the UFO group "To the Stars Academy," and a disclosure document filed at opensecrets.org; or, to non-WP:RS sources like a show page for a History Channel Ancient Aliens-type fantasy show ("Unidentified! Inside America's UFO Investigation").
This is legitimized through extensive REFBOMBing in which a dozen RS (e.g. Vice, The Guardian, etc.) are crammed into the article. However, on close inspection, each of these simply contain one sentence quotes from Mellon; no biographical detail or detail of any kind.
This Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article is the only independent biographical treatment of him and it's two short and scanty paragraphs [11].

A standard WP:BEFORE finds more numerous instances of one sentence quotes from him all over the media, but nothing proving WP:SIGCOV. The only exception I've found is a single NewsNation story, however, NewsNation is not usable as a source for UFO TBs as per our decision in WP:UFONATION. Finally, Mellon served briefly (it appears less than two years) as a Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Pentagon. While sub-cabinet officers often get benefit of the doubt for WP:N under WP:POLOUTCOMES, we have never extended that all the way down to the lowly rank of Deputy Assistant Secretary (which is below Assistant Secretary, Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Secretary; there more than 100 DAS' in the USG at any one point). Chetsford (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Connecticut, Kansas, Maine, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comet (online retailer)

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

I redirected this to the article about the older company[12], but was reverted. Nothing more needs to be said than what is already present at the target Comet (retailer)#Comet (online retailer), no separate article is warranted. Fram (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Websites, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with above, this is a textbook WP:BADFORK. Orange sticker (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:BADFORK especially as the two businesses are in the same sector and use the same branding. Other similar situations use a single article, for example Borders (retailer) includes the current UAE franchise. On the other hand, Debenhams (online retailer) and Debenhams both exist as articles, but I can't see how a Comet (online retailer) article could develop much further, assuming it doesn't have a notable impact on its industry. --Northernhenge (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comet (retailer)#Comet (online retailer) as an ATD, Blatant WP:BADFORK, if it is recreated, lock the redirect. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lefter Koxhaj

AfDs for this article:

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

The article has been deleted two times before for lack of notability. There is still a lack of significant and in-depth coverage about the subject. Sources mostly mention him in relation with one event - the 2001 Skopje police raid. Wikipedia is not a memorial, so I think this recreation should stop. StephenMacky1 (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Albania, and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as the last two AfD, this isn't a notable person. I'm not even sure it would warrant a mention in the National Liberation Army article. Appears as a memorial, but the person has been gone for 20 yrs, if nothing's come up for notable/reliable sources in that time, I doubt much more will. Oaktree b (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: The notability is proven by several sources. Even though the sources mostly mention him in relation with the 2001 Skopje police raid, he also participated in numerous battles (Insurgency in the Preshevo Valley, Battle of Slupčane, Lipkovo crisis,Battle of Matejče and Aračinovo crisis). He was one of the most prominent NLA commanders without any doubt which is proven by sources like the North Macedonian Civil Media or Tetova Sot. Furthermore there is the source of Radio Kosova e Lire which describes his early life and involvement in the Insurgency in the Preshevo Valley and 2001 insurgency in Macedonia.

Mitrovica02 (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decentralist Party of the South

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

No refs on the page for many years. Maybe there are offline or other sources in other languages but I'm not seeing them. JMWt (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Peru. JMWt (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG. Note for example "Después de su derrocamiento, regresa al Perú y participa en la revolución de 1931 en Arequipa. Impulsa la creación del Partido Descentralista del Sur. Preside la Junta Provisional de Gobierno constituida para convocar inmediatamente elecciones. Cede la presidencia a don David Samanez Ocampo, que luego encabezaría en Lima la Junta Nacional de Gobierno." ([13]) - So the PDS leader became the interim president of the country. Multiple sources affirm that PDS was represented in the Constituent Assembly, and that it brought David Samanez Ocampo to power. --Soman (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok good. Add three good sources to the page and I'll withdraw the afd. JMWt (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how AfD works. Notability is not judged by the presence of sources in the article, nor is AfD supposed to be a forum for clean-up. I refer to WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE. --Soman (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry no, this has been unsourced since 2009, there has been plenty of time to add sources. You here claim that there are plenty of sources that meet the GNG, so if it is that easy then add them. If not, your claims are not verified per Wikipedia:Verifiability JMWt (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt the verifiability policy applies to articles exclusively. It does not apply to discussions. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Curbon7 (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soman I agree. It might help if you listed a few sources here at the AFD to show they exist -- not everyone speaks enough Spanish to search very effectively to check. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tharizdun

AfDs for this article:

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

Fictional deity from D&D. Reception is limited to two listicles or such. WP:GNG fail. BEFORE fails to find anything. Per WP:ATD-R, I suggest merging reception to the List of Dungeons & Dragons deities and redirecting this there (our article is just a list of appearances in D&D media and fancrufty description of in-universe history etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 2 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, Games, and Religion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Refs 1, 6, 7, and 27 provide significant IRS or acceptable SPS coverage of the topic. Reception isn't mandatory, and even if it was, non-RS'es would be sufficient for that. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Inasmuch as reception is objective the reporting of a non-WP:Reliable source is not reliable, and inasmuch as it is subjective the opinion of a non-WP:Reliable source is not WP:DUE. TompaDompa (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, actually. As I've been told elsewhere recently, DUE only governs viewpoints rather than content, so there cannot possibly be a DUE violation if no RS has any viewpoints, because there's nothing to privilege there. Yeah, not sure I believe that, but even so: requiring the RS to be in one section for a fictional topic isn't supported by any policy or guideline to the best of my knowledge, even though it is certainly a best practice to include RS'ed reception when available. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - The very first sentence of WP:NPOV says All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. In other words, the viewpoints must come from WP:Reliable sources. I'm not sure quite what you are trying to say with DUE only governs viewpoints rather than content, so there cannot possibly be a DUE violation if no RS has any viewpoints, because there's nothing to privilege there, but my point was that if we're talking about the subjective parts of the reception, i.e. opinions/viewpoints, we need to use WP:Reliable sources. It would be rather nonsensical to say that the text of WP:DUE—Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.—somehow implies that we would defer to sources that are not reliable for their viewpoints if there are no reliable sources to use. Indeed, WP:DUE goes on to say Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. More importantly, DUE only governs viewpoints rather than content is technically correct but a bit misleading/WP:WikiLawyer-ish. Firstly, the content equivalent—WP:PROPORTION, which says that articles are supposed to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject—is just slightly further down from the WP:DUE section of WP:NPOV, and "due" is often used as shorthand for this as well (though it could be argued to strictly speaking be wrong to use "due" in this sense). Secondly, that X is worth mentioning, or indeed that Y is not worth mentioning, is a viewpoint. TompaDompa (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article is all plot, it has not been demonstrated that these sources meet WP:SIGCOV, and that they go beyond a plot summary. WP:ALLPLOT/WP:NOTPLOT (the latter being a policy) ask to be heard, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of reliable sources for inclusion and it would be good to keep something a bit more dispassionate about this central figure in D&D cosmology than you'll get from various fanwikis. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Greyhawk deities where this has an entry that is just a link to this page, but where other deities have a paragraph each. Not clear why this one gets special treatment. Claims that this has sourcing are quite debatable. Jclemens says some refs give acceptable SPS coverage of the topic. But WP:SPS sources do not contribute to the notability of the topic, and this is nearly everything (or else the sources are primary). Dragon magazine has an article about four deities, but Dragon is an official magazine for the D&D RP games and is thus not an independent source for notability. Who, outside of the game system itself, is writing articles about this deity? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy We do :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge per Sirfurboy. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. We're missing sufficient coverage in sources that are both independent and reliable. Any WP:SPS can be summarized more briefly at another notable article. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Greyhawk deities per Sirfurboy. I'm also at a loss as to why this particular deity gets special treatment. The article does not meet WP:GNG, and it feels like a case of WP:DUE.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' During the prior AfD one editor mentioned having access to independent magazine articles in Challenge Magazine and Pegasus Magazine that demonstrated significant independent coverage. These are not currently in the article so I reached out to that editor asking them if they can provide said sources. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AD&D module WG4 The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun published 1982 originated the fictional deity, making it more familiar in D&D than most. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MAGA Communism

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

Non-notable Twitter fad. Remsense ‥ 论 20:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Remsense ‥ 论 20:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me why this article is scheduled for deletion? LaparohMesa (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LaparohMesa, the nom said it’s a “Non-notable Twitter fad”. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 21:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that it isn't "Non-notable". I think it is important to note people of the misinformation these fascists spread. LaparohMesa (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t usually just right great wrongs. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 00:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think that the article has some notability and can be improved. Theofunny (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and agree with the "Twitter fad" comment from OP. The article is based on sources that are not particularly reliable or notable: a Substack, some Youtube videos from a channel that barely cracks 30k views per video on a good day, and a couple of websites that look more like blogs. It doesn't deserves its own article. Could also be redirected to Jackson Hinkle who, from my understanding, it's their main "representative". Paprikaiser (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jackson Hinkle - aside from the article currently being in a questionable state, it itself already seems to acknowledge at multiple points in the span of merely five paragraphs that "MAGA Communism" has a near-zero number of serious supporters and no real presence outside of the internet (seriously, about a third of the article is currently dedicated to explaining how unpopular its subject is), and the sources, as already stated by another editor, don't seem to be particularly excellent for proving the subject's notability. I fail to see how this is notable, or any reason to not redirect this page to Jackson Hinkle, which was already the case when it was created.

FiveInParticular (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Some coverage [14], [15]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a few hits in a thesis and some communist newspapers in Gscholar, click on the link above. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Jackson Hinkle. Weak coverage by unreliable sources outside of Twitter does not indicate notability. The recreated article has the same citation issues as a previous rejected draft from 2023, i.e., lack of in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Yue🌙 00:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept, then the appropriate title should be MAGA communism without the unnecessary capitalisation. Yue🌙 18:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Jackson Hinkle. Mostly covered by unreliable sources that are improperly cited in this article. Generally unnotable outside of Twitter similar to "Dark MAGA", which redirects to the Madison Cawthorn page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.77.166.230 (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I believe we should keep this article but protect it, as I believe its educational. Valorrr (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep to Keep; MAGA Communism has been covered by notable sources (though much of the ideology's notability is directly linked to coverage of Jackson Hinkle). If the article is kept it will need much work, perhaps from editors of WikiProject Socialism. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Oaktree. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the argument for deletion was that it was non-notable. But notability can be established. As per Oaktree, there is coverage on it from El País and The Guardian, and it is notable enough to be noted in some dissertations. I also saw some coverage elsewhere, like in Compact and UnHerd. It was given a mention by MSNBC too. Thus it appears to be notable enough. Brat Forelli🦊 11:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most people agree to weak keep/keep it, so it's official, it'll be kept. Could we close the discussion now? LaparohMesa (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 16:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will close it. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the notice 78.87.23.12 (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has only been active for a little over four days. There's no need to be an eager beaver and close it earlier than the standard seven days, especially when the responses are mixed. AfD decisions aren't based on the number of votes, and speedily closing per something like WP:SNOW isn't applicable here because the discussion is not universal in agreement (mostly weak support for keeping the article at best).

Regardless, whoever closes this discussion needs to do it properly; this discussion was still open when the tag at the top of the article was removed. Yue🌙 02:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability has been established, enough sources have been added to verify that. Frijfuhs (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the subject seems semi-notable, but the article needs a lot of clean-up.

Mikeycdiamond (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This discussion was incorrectly closed as a Speedy Keep but it was never withdrawn. It was not eligible for a Speedy Keep as there is a Deletion argument. AFD discussions also should never be closed by an involved editor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Jackson Hinkle (or simply delete). The only high-quality source that more than mentions this is the Guardian piece, which paints a rather different picture than what we get in the article. So, at least at present, I would say it flunks notability (unless maybe if the Spanish sources are especially strong?). Also, there's a possible NPOV issue with treating what is elsewhere presented as mostly a social media provocation as if were a serious social movement or emerging political coalition. Patrick (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, review for re-creation in 6 months I almost wrote "keep for now and AFD it again in 6 months" but was afraid that would be counted as simply as "keep". If this is a passing meme that quickly disappears, we should not have an article on it. If not, we should have one. Probably the best wiki basis for my bolded stance is wp:notnews and also that it doesn't have really in-depth RS coverage. North8000 (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, 6 months might not make a difference however - the sources for this article range from 2022 to 2025. Being for almost 3 years seems to show that it passed the end of time, unless you need it to be almost 3,5 years instead to be sure. Brat Forelli🦊 15:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jackson Hinkle. If this had something like the sourcing that exists for a subject like National Bolshevism, I could see this being retained, but the sourcing is overwhelmingly about a single person, not a movement, alliance or faction. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oaktree and Brat Forelli. It has coverage in a multitude of sources. Although it's linked to Hinkle, the coverage of it as a separate phenomenon is enough to merit an article here. Second preference is to redirect to Hinkle's article if my view is wrong and there's a consensus it doesn't pass GNG. Flip^and Flopped ツ 01:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's notable enough. A section about the American Communist Party could also be written here, if it doesn't get its own article.

Polish kurd (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep. article is well-sourced and notable. i think it passes muster to be more than a fad, even if it's highly fringe and unpopular, wikipedia covers many topics that are fringe and unpopular.--Plifal (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"* Keep, sources seem to be fine, and the phenomenon itself is notable. It does need some cleaning up, though. PhoenixCaelestis · Talk · Contributions 12:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is what I love about Wikipedia. You just learn something new every day. In this case, about a concept such as "MAGA communism", though bizarre, the sources do appear to justify notability. Strange article, but interesting. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jackson Hinkle. The sources are Infrared (a youtuber); Jackson Hinkle tweets; one article each (mostly about Hinkle's activities) by Vice, The Spectator, and The Guardian, and some blogs and fringe publications that aren't on WP:RSN. Also, it is written like an essay. It is a fringe Twitter trend promoted by Hinkle and affiliated minor social media influencers on Twitter. This doesn't belong in Wiki, based on our guidelines for general notability.--FeralOink (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I doubt this is a notable thing. Seems like a social media thing. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Jackson Hinkle. Not enough coverage to justify a stand alone article. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Weak Keep I agree with the OP's assessment that this is an internet fad. But even fads can sometimes become notable. I think this one has garnered just enough coverage in RS (non Communist) sources to ring the N bell. That said, this is not a hill I'm interested in dying for. If this ends up as a redirect pending better SIGCOV, I can live with that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Jackson Hinkle -- As he started the movement it should be in his article to avoid non-neutrally portraying it as its own thing. Plus, sources aren't that good. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Airside Retail Park

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

Based on the category this is in, this is one of two retail parks in the State with articles. But from the article, I can’t discern what makes it notable. Its external coverage is routine: it was constructed, has certain facilities and a large anchor tenant in the Tesco, all of which brought jobs. Isn’t this the same as dozens if not hundreds of retail parks? The content could possibly be merged into the Swords article. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The creator of this article was subject to a sockpuppet investigation relating to other retail park articles, so I’m not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt here. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, no WP:SIGCOV, and nothing actually worth merging. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Swords,_Dublin#Commercial_and_retail. Or, failing that, simply delete. While Wikipedia:WikiProject Shopping Centers doesn't have specific notability guidelines, WP:NBUILDING and WP:GNG apply. And there is nothing to indicate that this retail park meets either guideline. (In short, while a WP:BEFORE returns mentions of the retail park's name in news articles, it is mainly "incidental" coverage. Where the subject isn't the primary topic of the coverage and is mentioned in passing in news coverage about something else (like this on RTÉ where the main topic is the MetroLink, or this in the Fingal Independent where the new Tesco store could have been elsewhere and probably would have had the same coverage.) I cannot find any material sources which cover the subject as a primary topic in any depth. The only sources I can find would only allow for expansion of a "tenants" sections (which would be completely inappropriate relative to WP:TENANTS and WP:NOTDIRECTORY). And, unless I'm missing something, I can't find sources to expand on the site's history/architecture/operation/ownership/etc.) The only reason I'm advocating a merge/redirect, as an alternative to deletion, is because of the volume of mentions returned in a WP:BEFORE. Making it a plausible search term that may warrant a target WP:WITHIN another article.... Guliolopez (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Routine strip mall from what I see. Not unlike any hundreds of others all over the planet. It's not architecturally notable, I don't see a connection to any historic event. Just a retail space, doing retail things. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very WP:MILL strip center. Nathannah • 📮 20:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eilistraee

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

Fails WP:GNG. Virtually all of the citations are to D&D rulebooks and blog posts. Aside from that, they appear in one listacle. This is a massive in-world lore dump masquerading as an article and I'm kind of shocked it's survived this long. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:11, 1 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, and Games. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more sources are found, otherwise merge to Drow. BOZ (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question @The Squirrel Conspiracy: Have you also looked at the Google Scholar search? It may well not amount to much, but there are a number of hits which are not "D&D rulebooks and blog posts", so they should be checked out in accordance with WP:ARTN and WP:BEFORE. Daranios (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I see absolutely nothing usable there. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios We have something from an academic German source (Blume), but it seems to be a passing mention, but maybe you could double check. Other than that, reception has a pathetic listicle entry... :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Thanks, I've seen that and added what I've found there. Not a lot, but not trivial either. (And it has become a convoluted sentence again, so if someone can phrase that better...) Daranios (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment from the above, [16] is a master's thesis that provides a brief bit of coverage. Certainly counts as a secondary source. [17] appears to be independent use of the character. That's not a lot, but one more source would get me to !vote to keep (maybe weakly depending on the source). Hobit (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One other source I do find relevant and usable in the Google Scholar search is the PhD thesis "“Sounds Like It's Canon Now”: Texts and/as Truths in Transmedia Franchise Dungeons & Dragons". Has a lot of plot summary on Eilistraee, but also commentary on different characterization in Smedman's novels and earlier rulebooks. Daranios (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That 2024 dissertation on D&D transmedia has a large focus on Eilistraee & the impact of Lisa Smedman's Lady Penitent trilogy on D&D narrative (pg232-269). I didn't go through every collection available in the Wikipedia Library but I went through some of the larger ones (JSTOR, ProQuest, Sage, Springer, Taylor & Francis, etc) and that dissertation was the only hit for "Eilistraee". Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, there's still way too much gameguide stuff here. Would this be better addressed as a pantheon article? Of course, that's complicated by different pantheons in different iterations of D&D... Jclemens (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge reception to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities mention of this deity, as it is not fancruft, like 99% of this article :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Corellon Larethian might be a decent target if the decision is to merge (similar to Lolth being merged to Drow); in the Forgotten Realms fiction, Eilistraee is his daughter and she' already highlighted a bit in that article. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the reception we have now would be bolstered with said PhD thesis, and the plot summary would be trimmed back to an amount balanced with the non-plot sections of Publication history and Reception (and in part Background), we would have a non-stubby article which fullfils WP:NOTPLOT and has enough based on secondary source to fullfil WP:WHYN, i.e. a notable topic. That said, I am not fundamentally opposed to a merge, though my preferred target in such a case would be the Drow article in parallel to the discussion on Lolth. The commentary on Eilistraee we have now is closely related to the drow. Maybe a bit less so in the PhD thesis. List of Dungeons & Dragons deities or Corellon Larethian are also related topics and fine as merge targets, but in my view somewhat less suited. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per all. Much of this lacks proper sourcing, or even violates WP:NOT. This is the normal basis for deleting or redirecting, but I see that the several keep !voters would also support a merge. Supporting this per WP:ATD and per WP:CONSENSUS. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Excalibur Party

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

Fails WP:ORG. I found no in-depth coverage in reliable sources after searching through Google and provincial archives (Vancouver City archives + UBC Library). The now defunct party achieved insignificant results in the one election it contested (less than one-tenth of a percent in 2013), so there is no obvious claim of notability.

Of the 6 sources cited, 2 are primary sources, 2 are blogs, 1 is routine local coverage for the election cycle, and 1 is a routine registration list from Elections BC. I found one more article from a minor news publisher that accepts articles from the general public. A lack of reliable and in-depth coverage indicates a lack of lasting significance as well. Yue🌙 05:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 05:24, 25 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!} 03:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of political parties in British Columbia#Historical parties that never had seats in the legislature – Where the party is mentioned (and per others AfDs). Svartner (talk) 10:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yue: thoughts? it's lio! | talk | work 07:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think the redirects are unhelpful and unnecessary. However, as nobody has really engaged with the AfDs on this topic area specifically (minor parties in BC), I am not strongly opposed to also closing this discussion as a redirect. Yue🌙 07:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on redirecting to the above target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial College Halls of Residence

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

Little on the page to suggest that this topic has independent notability outside of Imperial College London. Suggest at best it could be merged because of WP:NOTEVERYTHING but also suspect that detailed guff about student accommodation is unlikely to be notable even there. JMWt (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose At least two of the current halls of residence and one former hall discussed in the article are notable as listed buildings per WP:GEOFEAT:

"Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable."

There is also evidence of notability for other halls, with significant coverage in the Evening Standard and ITV News, as well as in the trade magazine The Construction Index. That much of the page is sourced back to Imperial does not affect notability. Robminchin (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as listed buildings per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No need for a separate article about student accommodation. Beside that, it looks rather promotional due to the fact that most of the sources are related to the subject. The Banner talk 17:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social media and television

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

Vanity article with deminimis view (several hundred a month) that is more like reflection. Graywalls (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Advertising, and Internet. Graywalls (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pageviews are not relevant in determining suitability for Wikipedia. And if the article is poorly written, that's reason for a rewrite, not a deletion. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 03:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except.. we already have social media and television. This article is a vanity article with no clear merit. Graywalls (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whose vanity? Geschichte (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity article as in spammy filler material. Oaktree b (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear from Graywalls. Vanity is not spam as such, it's the notion that "I'm so important that I need a Wikipedia article". Geschichte (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: but boy does this need a rewrite. I think it's talking about the effect of social media and television, but this is all over the place. I'd maybe sent it to !draft, but it's an old article, not sure anyone would pick it up. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While there are plenty of sources, this topic fails the second test of WP:GNG: material not being excluded under WP:NOT. This violates WP:NOESSAY and is a pile of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. While I'm sure someone could write an encyclopedic treatment of this topic, this ain't it, and would require such extensive revision that WP:DINC doesn't apply and WP:TNT does. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think we should generally be pretty reluctant to invoke WP:TNT, but this is over the bar for me, basically per Dclemens1971. I think a related issue is that people have interpreted the scope as "anything I can think of involving the intersection between social media and television", which isn't really a coherent topic for an article (there's a reason titles like this are discouraged). If this is deleted, it'd be best recreated as multiple articles with narrower scopes (we already have Social television, and maybe Effects of social media on television ratings would be a good addition). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep of move to draft, AFD is not cleanup, and any editor can clear out the essayish stuff. Articles about the documented interrelationship between related fields are permissible. BD2412 T 04:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Santa Cruz, Diagnosed Homesick

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

WP:GNGThe poem gets no in-depth discussion. It only gets mention on one website as having won a prize (no indication of what the other prizes were for) and all other mentions of it online mirror this article. The author herself may well be notable and I mentioned her poetry awards there, with a cited source. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 08:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Wowk

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

Borderline speedy deletable as an attack page. Not notable as a politician, he is "notable" "for his numerous criminal cases", as the lead of this article proclaims. This boils down to a failure of WP:SUSPECT, with just one actual conviction (for evading provincial taxes, hardly something we write articles about), and then a lot of charges, accusations, and gossip about his wife. Fram (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Crime, and Canada. Fram (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose he fits all the criteria of WP:BLP, in such that he has more than 2 reliable major sources talking about him. If you don’t like the tone of the sources that is an entirely different problem and not exactly one for grounds of deletion. Scuba 13:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Backlog? Fram (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, I was on mobile and meant BLP not BL, I'll fix it now for posterity. Scuba 13:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale behind "sufficient coverage" means you can't count the number of sources necessary to show a clear notability of a subject. For a BLP concentrating on negative activities, the bar is higher, in my view. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to reread BLP, and specifically WP:BLPCRIME, if you think "more than 2 reliable sources talking about him" is "all the criteria of BLP". Fram (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay well we have 11 sources, and he has been found guilty of his crimes. so I'm not sure why you're invoking WP:BLPCRIME here Scuba 13:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What crimes? Income tax fraud and storing a gun improperly? He isn't Jack the Ripper, these aren't notable crimes. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the article goes, he is not even conviceted of storing a gun improperly either, only of provincial tax evasion. But we do have "Wowk had run a computer consultancy named TKW Communications which, according to former employees, hadn't paid taxes from 2000 until they where caught in 2004, and that Wowk destroyed most of the tax records to prevent them from falling into auditor's hands": in reality, it is an allegation by one employee, and he doesn't say that "Wowk destroyed" anything, but that "He also stated that he would destroy all documents long before any auditors came in".[18] So that's some clear BLP violations right there. Fram (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, a one-time political candidate that had untaxed smokes and skimped on paying provincial income tax... That sounds like a character in crime noir thriller, nothing we'd use for an article in Wikipedia. This is silly. Oaktree b (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely not speedyable since the information is reliably sourced, although the excessive could be trimmed somewhat. My chief problem is I did a search for news sources, found all the ones already in the article, and then drew a blank. A genuinely notable figure would generate far more news coverage to the extent we wouldn't be running out of source material. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A reliably sourced page with " material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person" is also an A10 candidate of course, not only unsourced pages can be A10 deleted. Fram (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Income tax fraud and improper weapons storage hardly are notable. Being a political candidate, never won a seat, does not meet NPOL. Just an individual that appears to have made poor choices in life, but nothing for Wiki notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Being in possession of untaxed tobacco? Seriously, this is not notable. I'd venture that a large majority of smokers in Canada have done this. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We have reliable sources from 2021 and 2024, which appear to confirm his notability WP:BASIC, CBC by Geoff Leo, Regina Leader Post by Brandon Harder. The articles are 3 years apart and the subject was in the media. He won a Governor General of Canada award for "Fire Services Exemplary Service Medal" in 2021 [19] which would appear to confirm WP:ANYBIO, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times". The article does need some work, it does read like an attack page, but that can be trimmed down. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 18:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of most paid VPN service by consumption and market share by country

AfDs for this article:

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

No claim of significance, unreferenced and fails WP:NLIST Syn73 (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Lists. Syn73 (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't know if this can be speedied but it appears to be a combination of WP:G2 and WP:G7. If it can't, I think these are still good reasons to delete after AfD - it's indiscriminate information that would require considerable effort and WP:OR to assemble into a reliable list and nobody is likely to do that. Even if they did, it would be almost instantly out of date. JMWt (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oddly specific title LMFAO. Clearly do not pass WP:NLIST Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nearly 10 yr old list, with only three countries listed. Very likely speedy deletion material... It looks like an unfinished stub draft that got pushed into mainspace then forgotten about. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and send to WP:DAFT. Incredibly specific. — E_F⁵ 18:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Previous AFD was opened by article creator and sole contributor and should have been considered a WP:G7 request. OZOO (t) (c) 18:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Out of date and unsourced list, and as the VPN industry exists on secrecy and is a consolidated space (several services are owned by a group of companies), it's doubtful we can even get true and reliable statistics about this in the first place. Also generally these 'market share' articles usually contribute nothing to the reader and are WP:PROMO. Nathannah • 📮 22:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blaggard's Moon

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

Per WP:NBOOK. I found absolutely no RS coverage. Astaire (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Astaire (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What do I read next?, 2009. Volume 1 looks pretty promising as a source discussing that, especially p. 309-310, but I can only see snippets. Can anyone shed light on this?

I am not quite familiar with the terminology, I guess an Honors thesis is generally not applicable as an RS? There is extended discussion in "Freeflight: Conveying Christian Redemption in Realistic Literature". Daranios (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen either of these, but "What Do I Read Next?" just mentions the book in a list of "Recommended Titles" on page 310. There is no review or significant coverage of the book. The second source looks like an undergraduate thesis, which isn't usable according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

Thanks for looking. Astaire (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalayna Price

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

Author best known for a 7-book fantasy series. I can only find reviews in Publishers Weekly for books number 1 [20], 5 [21], 6 [22], and 7 [23] in the series. Book 6 also has a second review in Library Journal [24]; however, this is the only one of the series that (barely) meets WP:NBOOK, and so I don't think the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR. Astaire (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Astaire (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The reviews mentioned in the nom are more than we see for the majority of authors here in AfD. I'd argue they show critical notice, for a series of books for the last 15 yrs or so. It's not War and Peace, but we have some reviews over a span of time, that's the bare minimum for author notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With 9 books written by this author and only 1 of them (barely) meeting NBOOK, and most of the coverage coming from a single source (Publishers Weekly), I just don't see this as a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. But maybe there's a different prevailing interpretation of NAUTHOR here at AFD. Astaire (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of racism-related films

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

A list with an unclear scope and no citations except one to IMDb. "Racism-related"? I doubt this passes nlist - for the first half of the list, it is almost entirely about racist films, and the latter half is almost entirely antiracist films, a topic sources would cover differently. This was proded some time ago with a suggestion to merge or redirect to Films about race. I do not care either way. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whilst I see it might have taken work to devise this page, it seems to be based on the mistaken idea that anyone else would find this useful - clearly with weak parameters almost anything could be included. WP:NOTEVERYTHING. JMWt (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:NLIST. Race-related films are indeed a thing as noted by the nom, but racism-related films sort of blurs the line between films that accurately call out race and those that have racist rants. Realistically, the article would be called List of race-related films. Conyo14 (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Galgotias University

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

The only sources here are Advertorials, and routine announcement. I could not find anything that would establish notability of this university except for a news article that talks about clashes happening in the college and about student protests. If that is the only thing that makes the subject notable then, the article should be framed differently and should definitely not be solely about the University in itself. Announcements about events in the university also does not make the subject notable. Also copy of Galgotias College Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arunachal Times

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

Challenging draftification. I found no significant coverage of the website from any reliable sources. There are passing mentions, but they are not enough to meet SIGCOV. Additionally, no policy states that being a news organization automatically makes it notable. GrabUp - Talk 11:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, No evidence of notability. References are just passing mentions and not from reliable sources. Bakhtar40 (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You will barely find any references for newspapers. News media do not talk about each other. This was already a discussion in Wikiproject:Newspaper that the criteria for normal articles cannot be used for newspapers. Kindly see Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where I live, newspapers are covered extensively by both encyclopedias and books. Any hope there? Geschichte (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the west yes, but not so when it comes to Asian countries. Thats why I mentioned that, we gotta approach newspapers differently, as it creates an obvious bias. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arunachal Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In accordance with WP:NMEDIA, dailies such as Arunachal Times are assumed significant if they extensively circulate and contain a known history of independent reporting. Asking for major secondary coverage creates an unrealistic expectation—media does not cover others. Removing this page has the risk of enabling systemic bias (WP:BIAS) against regional media. You cannot judge dailies using WP:GNG as dailies themselves are the source of 3rd party material. Other dailies don't usually write about each other Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:51, 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) 03:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mokokchung Times

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

Challenging draftification. I found no significant coverage of the website from any reliable sources. There are passing mentions, but they are not enough to meet SIGCOV. Additionally, no policy states that being a news organization automatically makes it notable. GrabUp - Talk 11:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am coming here from the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Newspapers#What_do_you_cite_when_You_are_talking_about_a_Newspaper? and a request for comment on newspaper notability which I am organizing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Newspapers/Notability#Request_for_comment:_Notability_guideline_for_newspapers. Here we have a Wikipedia article for an English language newspaper in Nagaland. I highly respect Wikipedia's fact-checking process, which says that we cannot have Wikipedia articles without sufficient citations. This article does not meet that requirement, which is documented at WP:GNG. However, I am proposing and exploring the idea that newspapers need a special exception, because they themselves are the sources which we use to fact-check other content. Having Wikipedia articles for newspapers is the natural way for anyone to find available information about a newspaper, or also - and this is very useful - confirm that no one has been able to find many sources for a newspaper.

We have very little Wikipedia representation in Nagaland (Northeast India) and I looked at this newspaper, and right now it seems fine.

Here are some article headlines which I see right now in this newspaper. All of them seem appropriate to me to cite to develop Wikipedia articles on related topics:

TIMES, MOKOKCHUNG (1 April 2025). "Nagaland: Four injured in clash over border dispute; Dy CM calls for calm » MokokchungTimes.com". mokokchungtimes.com.
TIMES, MOKOKCHUNG (1 April 2025). "Nagaland govt officials reaffirm commitment to strengthening sports infrastructure for youth empowerment » MokokchungTimes.com". mokokchungtimes.com.
TIMES, MOKOKCHUNG (10 March 2025). "Mokokchung's waste and burial site woes: MMC struggles for alternatives » MokokchungTimes.com". mokokchungtimes.com.
TIMES, MOKOKCHUNG (15 September 2023). "Imnayongdang Kichu: The inventor behind the 'Areca Nut Peeler' » MokokchungTimes.com". mokokchungtimes.com.

Bluerasberry (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, Nothing to pass WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage. Bakhtar40 (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You will barely find any references for newspapers. News media do not talk about each other. This was already a discussion in Wikiproject:Newspaper that the criteria for normal articles cannot be used for newspapers. Kindly see Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nagaland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In accordance with WP:NMEDIA, dailies such as Mokokchung Times are assumed significant if they extensively circulate and contain a known history of independent reporting. Asking for major secondary coverage creates an unrealistic expectation—media does not cover others. Removing this page has the risk of enabling systemic bias (WP:BIAS) against regional media. Agree with (Bluerasberry)Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:49, 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) 03:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Galgotias College

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

The only sources here are Advertorials, and routine announcement. I could not find anything that would establish notability of this university except for a news article that talks about clashes happening in the college and about student protests. If that is the only thing that makes the subject notable then, the article should be framed differently and should definitely not be solely about the University in itself. Announcements about events in the university also does not make the subject notable. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seneca, Arizona

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

This one is a mess not in the least because it's not clear that the ghosttowns.com entry is talking about the same place, but according to this story the place came into being as a failed attempt by the local reservation to create a vacation spot. I'm not sure that it all there is to it, as it shows up on the map before that timeframe, but at any rate it is absolutely not a populated place now. Mangoe (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Seneca Lake Recreation Complex with the artificial Seneca Lake on Cienega Creek that flows down Mule Hoof Canyon is indeed where this is. But it is not Cienega Creek; this one rather being a minor tributary of the Salt River. The construction of the complex on the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation in the 1970s required the production of OCLC 21683618 before it could be signed off.
The ghosttowns page implies that Seneca "ghost town" was part of the asbestos mining in Arizona; and hdl:10150/629706 confirms the existence of a tiny Seneca Mining Company in the 1950s, although other Bureau of Mines publications such as OCLC 1990345 indicate that Accident Group of Globe was the major asbestos mining company there.
In the 1980s GNIS, Seneca at 33°45′24″N 110°30′44″W / 33.75667°N 110.51222°W / 33.75667; -110.51222 (Seneca) was a "locale" not a "ppl". So this is another "unincorporated community" lie that is not really fixable as it isn't the real subject anywhere. asbestos mining in Arizona is a missing subject, but this would be a totally ridiculous way to start it.
Uncle G (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - may also fail WP:GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially per Uncle G; not a community in the sense required by GEOLAND and not a reasonable redirect. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have done work on the article and added sources to establish notability and remedy the obvious problems which led to the nomination, work still in progress.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough coverage to meet the minimum required by WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review changes made since this article's nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm not convinced that the extra material shows that this was anything more than a commercial center without residents, but it is certainly better than it was. Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm genuinely conflicted on the best path forward. My reading of the sources is that this was never a community in the sense required by GEOLAND and so the current title is inappropriate, but the current sourcing is enough to support at least a few lines somewhere. I do not favor retaining this as a separate article but wouldn't object to a Merge to San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation or another appropriate place. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I continue to add content as time permits. Diff for edits done today: [25]. People definitely used to live here. The resort development is such a sad story, it seems clear from the beginning this could not work -- the lake is too small, there was no power to the site, the amount of traffic couldn't support it, etc. One of so many poor attempts to help Native American tribes with the difficult terrain they've been left with.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like there are other entries for ghosttowns in Gila County Arzona [26]. Maybe can be rediected to there. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:32, 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) 03:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice job turning this article around...the new sources are enough for notability in my opinion. Had they all been from a narrow date range I might think differently, but with mentions in media up to 2016, coverage seems to have been persistent and significant. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Kramer

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

Unsourced biography from 2006. Could not find SIGCOV about him. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Comics and animation. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some coverage for someone with a similar name [27], I don't know if it's this person though. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it is the same person. IMDB (not RS, I know) has several Lance Kramers: [28][29] Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't follow WP:GNG and the lack of sources seems like grounds for deletion. Cottagechez (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, California, and North Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm yet undecided. He directed a number of episodes, so there should be sources. Most of the article was written by IP editors, but I reached out to Jdb00. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:CREATIVE#3, as having played a major role (directing) in the creation of a notable work The Simpsons, which has been the subject of multiple, independent reviews. I have found one article about him, from 2000, and several reviews of two short animated films of his shown in animation festivals in the early 1990s. Otherwise, I have found sources that confirm his role as director in the episodes of the Simpsons. I think that is enough to satisfy WP:CREATIVE#3, as they provide verification of his role. (This person is not the same as the Lance Kramer who with his brother Brandon Kramer has made The First Step and Holding Liat - that Lance Kramer will probably be notable too.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that he means CREATIVE#3 as Kramer is not the "creator" of the Simpsons - that would be Matt Groening. And CREATIVE#3 mentions (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). However, the 3 articles mentioned may meet WP:BASIC. Can you put links to the articles here? Natg 19 (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREATIVE includes WP:DIRECTOR and other creative professions - it does not mean just the original creator of a series. The wording you quote is about what form coverage of "the significant or well-known work or collective body of work" can take: the work "must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work, for example ...". Lance Kramer directed 25 episodes of The Simpsons - it seems to me that he "played a major role in co-creating" it. The sources are in the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with you, as directing 25 episodes is very minor, out of the 783 (and growing) number of The Simpsons episodes. That is less than 5%. Will review the sources later on. Natg 19 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many people work on these TV shows, but most do not have their own stand alone article. Does not look notable and sourcing is not that great. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reminder that we don't much care about the sourcing in the article, so much as we care about the total possible sourcing available.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My sources above were not helpful. I don't see notability... Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 9 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 was made by the article's author, and no valid rationale for deletion was provided. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of most paid VPN service by consumption and market share by country

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

Reason DogWorldLive64 (talk) 03:04, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:25, 9 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 deleted‎ per WP:G4. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most eaten meat in the world by countries and territories. There is nothing in this list that addresses the concerns in the prior discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of most eaten meat by countries and dependent territories

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

Reason DogWorldLive64 (talk) 03:02, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:25, 9 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.

Harrison Kurtz

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this soccer player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, South Carolina, and Washington. JTtheOG (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 08:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable college player. The same user created hundreds of other pages on junior or lower-tier soccer players that similarly lack notability. Reywas92^Talk 13:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mahroos Siddiquee Nadim

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

Non-notable football player. Sources appear insufficient for establishing notability, and there's no indication that subject is notable enough for a standalone article. Fails WP:NATHLETE. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 08:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Northampton, MA

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

Non-notable album without significant coverage, previously draftified, also extensively BLARed at the redirect with history now located at Special:History/Live In Northampton, MA, so we might as well get a final decision on this. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found only one critic's review, from AllMusic. Does not meet WP:NALBUM. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see how this album is any less notable than most of the the other 20-odd releases from the King Crimson Collector's Club which have articles on Wikipedia; are they all to be deleted too? Sure, these things don't sell enough to get in the charts, but they are important documents of a highly influential band - King Crimson - which is now no more. If anything, I would argue that the Projekcts releases such as this one are MORE notable than many King Crimson live releases, due to their very rarity; only a handful were ever released. Robert Fripp, now nearly 80 years old, has regularly been voted one of the best guitarists on the planet and I believe that future generations will be thankful that we have documented all of his work here. There will be no more KCCC releases, and in a decade or so it is likely that Fripp's website will disappear too, leaving future music lovers looking to us for information on a remarkable talent (and I say that as an ex-pro musician myself.) In comparison, consider Frank Zappa, a musician of the same generation held in similarly high esteem by a broadly similar audience. Since his death there have been over 60 archive releases from his estate, each one no doubt selling only a few thousand copies to a dedicated fan-base, just as Live in Northampton, MA has done. Every one of them has an article on Wikipedia. Nectar3 (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's because this one does not meet the sourcing requirements. None of your argument has basis in Wikipedia's notability policies or guidelines. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:54, 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!} 22:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Nectar 3's arguments. Orlando Davis (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has no basis in policy whatsoever. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: while Nectar3 had provided nice WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSIMPORTANT arguments, there is still no indication that this meets WP:NALBUM or the WP:GNG. Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is leaning towards delete given the indication of only a single source, if there are not multiple reliable sources is redirect an option?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is a suitable ATD, ProjeKcts#ProjeKct Two is the present location where the album is listed and the former target of the redorect. Bobby Cohn (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any more support for a Redirection? Or have any additional sources been located?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IndustryMasters

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

IndustryMasters the company(?) and IndustryMasters the game (formerly IndustryPlayer) fail WP:ORG. I could not find in-depth coverage in reliable sources online.

There are five sources cited but actually eight in total; three are pasted in the middle of the article as external links. Citation 1 is a permanently dead link. Citations 2 to 4 verify that the IndustryMasters website was used to host one event (one game) of a competition in India from 2006 to 2010. Citation 5 does not mention, but is being used to verify the existence of, the event and competition. The first external link is a YouTube video announcing that IndustryMasters won a Learning Technologies Award, a private initiative. The second external link is a WBS source that briefly mentions IndustryMasters twice in the context of the WBS working with them. The Warwick Business School source is an announcement of its partnership with IndustryMasters.

The sourced content does not indicate anything particularly remarkable about the IndustryMasters company(?) and the rest of the article, including information about its gameplay and utility, is wholly unsourced. Its biggest claim to fame is winning an award in 2020 in its niche subset of educational games.

This article was recreated by Sunshinebr after its preceding article IndustryPlayer was deleted on 6 June 2008. Sunshinebr justified the recreation by saying they added sources, but evidently the sources are not in-depth or independent of the company and nobody had bothered scrutinising them until now. All of this article's content was written by Sunshinebr (other users' edits being general cleanup) and nearly all of Sunshinebr's edits are limited to this article.

Seems to me that an article for a non-notable game and later company was recreated and managed to pass unnoticed for several years. Yet through all that time, not one reliable, independent source covered either the game or company in detail, hence a failure of WP:ORG. Yue🌙 01:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Organizations. Yue🌙 01:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am the contributor sunshinebr. some inaccuracies in Yue's commentary _ IndustryMasters is a registered trademark for a proprietary and unique business simulation platform with hundreds of simulation variants, used by major corporations and business schools across the world. To call it non-notable is a distortion. - The activity in India was not 1 game but many editions and variations, and several top business schools. - The Learning Technology awards are a prestigious annual industry event in the UK. Not exactly a "private initiative" as Yue has stated. It may not be US-based, but is important in our industry, recognizing exceptional standards and performance as well as extremely close collaboration with a major academic institution. - I have removed reference 1 (the dead link) from the CPA of Australia as it seems to be out of print now. at the time of original publishing it was a valid reference. - The IndustryMasters platform continues to develop and publish in 2025 and will shortly announce major technological advances in business simulation programming. I would hope that Wikipedia would advance into the 21st century with its thinking, and provide a useful reference to the world across academia and industry.

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunshinebr (talk • contribs) 10:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia is established by citing independent reliable sources providing enough detail on the topic, not just stating about its subjective importance or awards; this is especially true for articles about companies. ObserveOwl (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing notability here against WP:NCORP. The sourcing present in the article fails to support significant coverage that would detail key information to describe the business and its products. The article is littered with promotional jargon that is generally not encyclopedic at all. The sources indicate some recognition in the field, but these are scattered amongst products or business practices that fail to provide context to the business or really evidence anything about its core notability. If the business is notable within or outside its industry, broader sourcing about the business would be expected. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Delete I cannot see it's notability either. Business descriptions, paid and self-published sources only. Maybe some sources exist. --Unicorbia (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is an unbolded Keep here so Soft Deletion is not an option. A source review would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if notability surfaces, this article appears WP:TNT worthy, especially given the non-improvement since 2008. The Learning Technologies Awards might be a relevant trade award here, but that doesn't save the article. IgelRM (talk) 21:19, 3 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!} 02:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of source review was suggested here? The first 3 are about from a conference, the 4 a homepage of an institute, 5 a gala video and 6, 7 on the Warwick School partnership. That's a clear delete. IgelRM (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Isla Bell

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

Does not pass WP:NEVENT. Sources are all thing happened with little commentary, making them WP:PRIMARYNEWS PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Australia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject isn't notable, very little coverage, Wikipedia:Lasting, and several other reasons previously listed. ^Wiinter_U 01:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: I do not know what the moderators, other editors would like. Australia is different to the US/UK - we do not have talk shows that discuss events. We have the news bulletins on television/radio and the newspapers. This is an on-going case and the comments section of any article about this (when opened) shows how outraged Australians are over this.

A young woman was taken, murdered, then her body dumped - Wikipedia has articles about a lot less. The trial, details of this are still yet to come; anticipating it to be a big trial with lots of information/evidence etc to be released (because we are in pre-trial stage so not everything is released - that would destroy the prosecutors case) someone took the initiative to start a page and start compiling the information and what because the Made for TV Movie isn't already being developed it's not enough for editors to warrant a page.

For the record there are other things happening in Australia as well; the Brisbane Olympic Games finally announced what they are doing, we had the Federal Budget handed down, we have an impending Election which is all taking up news time but because this isn't top story every night "WELP The world doesn't need to know about another woman killed by a man"? It's already a growing pandemic and you want to be part of hiding the numbers and sweeping stories about it under the rug?

Let's not forget the precedent you are setting here now... any crime that happens in the world NOTHING is allowed to be posted here until the court case is finalised and ALL evidence is available. NOTED! Thepeoplesdude (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)— Thepeoplesdude (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please read it WP:NEVENT. This wouldn't be notable if it had happened in America either. There are a lot of murders. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources I found are from November 2024. No lasting impact or coverage. Fails WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an on-going case with numerous court cases to play out. There were articles posted today and there is outrage in Australia about this. Did you bother to attempt to search before deciding a case you have never heard of isn't worthy? Why because it's Australian? Do we have to tear buildings down or ensure it is the only thing anyone in the country can think about for it to be worthy of a wikipedia article.

Thought this of all places would be one you would need to fact check or resource check... guess not! Just list things for deletion we don't like... wait here I'll go get a list of pages I don't like and we can list them for deletion too. Thepeoplesdude (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:EVENT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:LASTING. I suggest you get more experience editing other articles and contributing to other AfDs to understand how deletion works. Not everything reported in the media gets an article. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:EVENT in my opinion, well cited event that may have more coverage in the future. Brenae wafato (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with the reasons for nomination. Several articles discussed the event in the context of demonstrations opposing violence against women. It's more than just thing happened. I was able to find coverage in both Australian and UK sources, some of it from October 2024 and now March 2025. The multi-country scope and significant national coverage in Australia suggests notability to me as this is not an event just isolated to local news. I have added updates to the article with additional sources. A quick google news search turns up articles from October 2024 and March 2025, and please do due diligence commenting in favor of keep or delete. Coverage will likely continue as the full trial begins and I don't think the duration of coverage will be an issue long-term.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This one is borderline for me. Hassett (2024) looks like it gives coverage of the event as a notable example as opposed to news coverage. Roulston (2024) might indicate this as well, but it's a stretch. If there's a slightly more clear cut example of using this as a WP:CASESTUDY or becoming a go-to example in the literature, then it would be a definite keep. I'm not interested in coverage that might exist some day in the future (that's a fancy way of saying it doesn't exist), or continued breaking news coverage as it comes out. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this is still being used as an example of violence against women in Australia during coverage of anti-violence rallies in a newspaper of record: [30]. Uncertain if that will nudge minds in one way or another (I've added the reference to the article). Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. The claim that all coverage in the sources is from November 2024 is false as a review of the article clearly shows. But please, no conspiracy theories, these type of crime articles regularly appear in AFD discussions and is not influenced by the location of the crime, the outcome is determined the coverage of the incident by reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's an ongoing criminal court case. I'm not Australian but I suspect that there are similar regular reporting restrictions on legacy media during active criminal litigation as in the UK. Nothing we do here should impede the operation of a fair trial IMO, and there's no overwhelming reason why we need to write this story until all the court time is completed. JMWt (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a reason to delete articles on wikipedia? Unless the information in the article is original research, all of the information is from third parties. Wikipedia isn't censored WP:UNCENSORED, and I'm not sure how this article would impede a fair trial. Is the argument here to delete any article as soon as there are related court cases? Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
well I don't want to try getting outside of my lane in terms of detailed knowledge about media law however the situation relating to reporting current legal cases in the UK (and likely Australia and other countries with similar legal systems) is different to America. Here, judges tell jurors that they should disregard anything they hear or read outside of the courtroom and the media can be in breach of the law - even for repeating "common knowledge" facts about the case whilst a trial is going on. It isn't about censorship, it's about respect for the legal system as it works in different jurisdictions.

As to your other point, I believe Wikipedia should be following the media rules of jurisdictions like other media, which may well involve removing pages from view if they include information that would not be published in other media during a criminal trial.

In this particular case I think that's getting into the weeds as it looks like there may only be a fairly short delay until the court case starts and hopefully concludes anyway. So there would likely be more material to write a better page in a few months anyhow. JMWt (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That Wikipedia should refrain from publishing material that wouldn't be published in any particular territory or country's media is an extreme minority view that goes against WP:NOTCENSORED. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not a deletion argument. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this has a fair amount of coverage, and now has 17 sources some of which are news stories I have added. The case is quite infamous as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having fair amount of coverage doesn't override WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please re-review the article in light of the new sources that have been added to the content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's a current event (the trial), I'd say it's almost TOOSOON. This needs to happen and others to analyze it before we decide if it's notable. If the media is still talking about it in a year, we can revisit. I guess we could draft, but it would likely hang around and get deleted anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Athena (yacht)

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

The yacht lacks any notoriety whatsoever except for the fact that it was once owned by a wealthy individual. This article reads like a CarFax report. skarz (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding any sources that indicate notability. Current sources within article are only from sources that focus on yachts.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperion (yacht)

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

The yacht lacks any notoriety whatsoever except for the fact that it was once owned by a wealthy individual and 25 years ago it held a record. skarz (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree this yacht does not seem notable beyond any typical yacht of the ultra-wealthy. A single article in the NYT is not enough. Other reliable sources I have been able to find are passing mentions of the yacht's sale or a reference/basic description in articles about rich people/rich silicon valley ppl yachts.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Police Lines Adarsha High School, Tangail

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

Re-created following a speedy so bringing here for discussion. I cannot find sufficient sourcing to establish notability for this school. Assuming the non English sourcing verifies the facts, it's not establishing notability either Star Mississippi 01:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Star Mississippi 01:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Darcl Logistics

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

lacks sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If the article primarily relies on self-published sources or promotional content, it would violate Wikipedia’s neutrality and verifiability standards. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pandora! I have made changes in the article. Adityasharma0701 (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – I am not an expert in analyzing Indian sources, but the company seems to have the minimum notability for an article ([31], [32], [33]). If there is promotional content, it should be removed without prejudice to the existence of the article as a whole (WP:DINC). Svartner (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 10:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Highly promotional article. CJ Darcl Logistics provides a broad range of services... Most of the references are just press releases or announcements. the coverage is typical sponsored churnalism lacking WP:CORPDEPTH. Bakhtar40 (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: References are press releases, announcements and churnalism. The article sounds promotional and has many sections that are unnecessary.Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on the recent changes, I believe the article follows the wikipedia guidelines with adequate information.Thanks!Rachitmisr (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs work but the subject fulfills Wikipedia's notability requirements as per WP:ORG and has been updated since the nomination as per WP:HEY Nayyn (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It looks like the improvements to this article involved the removal of inappropriate content, not the addition of new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aditi Saigal

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

This is a case of Wp:TOOSOON. Just one film as acting career and one ep for that she received some press coverage. Other than that she is daughter of singer and actor parents but notability is not inherited. Fails wp:NACTOR and Wp:NMUSIC as well. Zuck28 (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Women, Film, Music, India, Delhi, and Wales. Zuck28 (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:FORBES, Forbes is generally considered a reliable source and can see Forbes covering profile for this person in their article here ^[1] Circular Karma (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30-2024/aditi-saigal-aka-dot-winning-with-words-and-melody/91751/1

Not all individuals featured in Forbes necessarily meet the eligibility threshold for a standalone Wikipedia article.

The subject must first satisfy the notability criteria outlined in Wikipedia's WP:Notability guidelines as a prerequisite for inclusion.

Zuck28 (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not established per WP:NACTOR, WP:MUSICBIO nor WP:GNG. The sourcing consists of standard PR type promo that one would see for any emerging actor with a press agent, including Forbes, which is not significant coverage, it's simply a photo of her with a caption mentioning her name, thus trivial. The Forbes "profile" link above is more standard PR ~~written by "Forbes Staff", (it does not even have a by-line)~~. I agree with the nom that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps in a few more years this emerging actor will become notable, but at this time, one acting role, Spotify "fans" and famous parents is not enough. Netherzone (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does have a byline and in my view counts as one piece of significant reliable sources coverage. Another reliable bylined piece in the Hindu here, another bylined piece here, leaning Keep for WP:GNG rather than WP:NACTOR imvAtlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One film is not sufficient to pass WP:NACTOR. Need at-least three feature films/web series/TV to comply WP:ACTOR. Forbes 30 Under 30 is paid. Bakhtar40 (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
General comment: Two is enough. Guideline says: "multiple" not "several". -Mushy Yank. 14:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: coverage has her meet WP:GNG. At worst a redirect to The_Archies_(film)#Cast is totally warranted so opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 14:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NACTRESS. RangersRus (talk) 18:44, 2 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!} 01:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who parodies

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

An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Doctor Who is an iconic series, and nearly every iconic series has been parodied at some point; there is no coverage indicating that parodies of Doctor Who specifically are notable. The overall topic has no coverage: All GNews hits are from unreliable sources or trivial mentions, while Books and Scholar have nothing covering parodies in particular. There's absolutely nothing indicating the notability of this subject, and none of the spoofs individually appear to be notable either given the lack of strong sourcing for all of them. This subject completely fails notability. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 13:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 13:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments while Books and Scholar have nothing covering parodies in particular: Dancing with the Doctor has a multi-page chapter dealing with the subject, "Unruly Divergence: Parody and Comedy". A Pirate's History of Doctor Who: the unauthorized stories reviews one parody in-depth, The Reign of Turner, but also discusses Doctor Who spoofs more generally on p. 171 (and presumably 170). It does have an ISBN, does not look self-published to me at first glance. Is Houston Press unreliable? Daranios (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A list of parody moments is in general a much more dubious proposition than a list of parody works—the latter being particularly suitable for a WP:CSC #1 (Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia.) kind of list, assuming there should be a list in the first place. If we are going to have such a list, I would be in favour of keeping information about each parody to a minimum on the list page, relying instead on the link to the article about the parody work for the details of the parody.
I took a quick look at the sources linked above by Daranios (or more accurately, the parts Google Books decided to show me). I would note that The Reign of Turner (IMDb link) does not currently have a stand-alone Wikipedia article and based on a quick search for sources likely does not merit one. The other linked source is a bit difficult to assess as Google Books rather severely limits what I'm able to see, but it mentions (at least) Doctor Who and the Curse of Fatal Death, Tonight's the Night (TV series)#Doctor Who Sketch, and "From Raxacoricofallapatorius with Love". The first and last of those are explicitly described as specials (a Doctor Who special and a The Sarah Jane Adventures special, respectively), which seems a bit dubious to describe as "parodies" without further qualifiers or elaboration (one might term them "self-parodies", perhaps).
I would also note that there is a Doctor Who in popular culture article (which is, it should be said, not in great shape at the moment). It is not immediately obvious to me that we should have separate articles for parodies and other types of cultural references. TompaDompa (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I have taken a stab at reducing this to a list of parody works with stand-alone Wikipedia articles. Take a look and see what you think. At any rate, we should not be listing parody works, parody moments, parody characters, and parody in-universe media together—that's just sloppy article construction. TompaDompa (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am not sure I agree with the recent extreme "cleanup" of the page (including removal of all the sources!!!] but that might be a different issue (I can't see why different sections focusing on different types/levels of parodying would be inappropriate; quite the opposite). Anyway clearly meets WP:NLIST. Sources presented above could seem sufficient. The topic is also addressed in Playing Fans: Negotiating Fandom and Media in the Digital Age (p. 102-104, for example) Also see sources like https://templeofgeek.com/list-of-doctor-who-parodies-and-doctor-who-inspired-music/ https://metro.co.uk/2017/03/24/no-doctor-who-sketch-in-comic-relief-this-year-you-can-watch-one-of-these-instead-6508088/ One can also add a Game Rant list (that CAN be used to expand the article, that's what WP:VALNET clearly states). Among missing titles in the list is Doctor Whore (https://www.cinemablend.com/television/Doctor-Who-Porn-Parody-Series-Exists-Compare-Casts-66875.html ; https://www.allocine.fr/article/fichearticle_gen_carticle=18633654.html?%20Series)) so that (re)-expansion seems AT LEAST possible -Mushy Yank. 09:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- different sections focusing on different types/levels of parodying would be a third approach, different both from what the article was like when it was nominated (which listed different types/levels of parody alongside each other, not grouped as such) and how it is structured now. Whether it is a good idea depends on whether that's how the sources treat the subject—parody works and parody characters (and so on) are different concepts, so if sources only discuss one of them if would be inappropriate to cover them together here. TompaDompa (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think there are enough secondary sources to establish notability, and everything else can be solved through normal editing. With regard to The Reign of Turner, if it is discussed in secondary source(s) but not enough to be notable, it is suitable to be included in a list in accordance with WP:ATD-M and such. I am not fundamentally opposed to treating this in a larger context, like Doctor Who in popular culture, on the basis of WP:PAGEDECIDE, but that's again a discussion that can be done outside of the deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, there are arguments to Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I feel so far, there has been very little sourcing discussing parodies as a whole, which is required by WP:LISTN to establish independent subject notability. So far the bulk, if not all of the sources, have been merely listings of ones that exist, or coverage of particular ones; nothing has thus far lent itself to showing the entire overarching subject is notable. I'm still not convinced that this meets notability right now. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Wahab Naser Al-Safra

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

Declined prod. The 2 added sources don't really contribute to notability. The arabnews story is a 1 line mention and not SIGCOV. The Olympiads.sa source appears to be a primary source of the athlete's Olympic Federation. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Saudi Arabia. LibStar (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there's an WP:NEXIST case to be made here considering that the subject was one of the first three athletes to ever represent Saudi Arabia internationally. We have three different WP:RS sources covering the subject plus two prose-based ones that I found despite not knowing the target language. I think a Wikipedian in Saudi Arabia should be able to find more SIGCOV out there, understanding that that Saudi newspaper archives would certainly have covered this in the 1970s. --Habst (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being one of the first athletes is fine, but we have no sourcing that talks about it. I can't find any in the languages I can speak; there might be some in Arab-language sources, but those aren't in my wheelhouse. Happy to revisit if someone can post some sort of extensive sourcing in the native language. Oaktree b (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saudi Arabia at the 1972 Summer Olympics: Subject doesn't appear to currently have the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. While there may be offline coverage somewhere covering the subject, we can't keep any WP:BLP based on that possibility alone. Redirect as a WP:ATD with the page history preserved in the event better sourcing is found. Let'srun (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saudi Arabia at the 1972 Summer Olympics per Let'srun. That is an acceptabe ATD as redirects are cheap. Database created Lugstub and we lack any sourcing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MySyara

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

due to a lack of notability, as significant coverage from independent reliable sources is missing, and the content appears promotional in tone. Additionally, the article does not provide substantial historical context or unique insights that justify its standalone existence. Mapsama (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are some potential good sources but on a closer look they fail WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. For example, this article is basically an interview, this article is paid (see disclaimer "PARTNER CONTENT"), and this article is just full of quotes like "Mr Chandran says", "Mr Latheef says", "the founders say", "the partners say", "Mr Latheef adds", "chief executive of MySyara, says", and then at the end they posted a brief interview. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these articles here will establish notability: Forbes, The National News, Middle East Business, Expeienece Abu Dhabi, Jawlah, Zawya. I will stop here. There are many more. I also don't see anything that sounds promotional. The content is strictly about their major milestones, historical facts, such as acquisitions and partnerships. There is not much difference between this and hundreds of other similar companies on Wikipedia. Dear Nominator: Please name me one section that you think is promotional and I will remove or revise it. There is no need for deletion if the article can be improved. Goodboyjj (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment: It is also suspect that a user with around 50 edits started doing nominations for page deletions. I think such tasks should be reserved for more experienced editors. Goodboyjj (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep subject is notable and nominator's suggestion that significant coverage from reliable sources is missing is inaccurate. Please perform WP:BEFORE before nominating. Just because the article needs work does not mean that the subject is not notable. Nayyn (talk) 13:39, 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!} 00:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Mapley

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

Insufficient notability, as it relies on self-referential sources and lacks significant independent coverage from credible publications that establish him as a prominent figure within the financial industry. Furthermore, the content primarily focuses on specific legal cases without providing comprehensive context or wider recognition that meets Wikipedia's notability. Mapsama (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets notability guidelines - independent coverage in reliable sources, especially in relation to international financial investigations and whistleblower activity.

Coverage and involvement include:

Mapley’s role in the collapse of the Basis Yield Alpha Fund, which invested in the Goldman Sachs Timberwolf CDO, is covered in HuffPost, The New York Times DealBook, ABC Australia, and International Business Times.

Mapley was a technical advisor to the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, contributing to its 650-page report on the 2008 subprime crisis, highlighting Goldman Sachs’ misrepresentation of structured financial products.

Further third-party coverage includes Expatica Switzerland, St Vincent Times, Further Blows Traded in EPF Fraud Case – PA Europe, and OffshoreAlert, which document his broader work in international financial investigations and asset recovery.

The article avoids promotional content and focuses on well-documented, encyclopedic facts. Legal cases are not undue weight, but part of broader public interest and regulatory investigation coverage.

This is not a case of routine mentions — Mapley is a central figure in multiple reputable sources with long-term notability — Quadtripplea (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article reads like a promotional handout or a linkedin write up for someone looking for work. This reads as an extended CV. None of the sourcing used is directly about this individual, rather, about other things and simply mentions this person. I don't find sourcing either that we could use. Oaktree b (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think this is the same person [34], but it doesn't confirm... If he's been suspended for doing illegal things, that could be notable, but without further proof, I can't confirm. I don't see criminal notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 19:08, 1 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, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Augury (company)

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

Article was created in 2019 by an account that was blocked for apparent undisclosed paid editing. The references in the article are all either press releases or churnalism/WP:CORPTRIV, with the exception of one interview with the CEO which is not independent coverage of the article's subject. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The sources I could find online were other press releases and routine coverage of things like funding and acquisitions, nothing that would show notability for the subject. I did find one source that seems borderline, but that single source is not enough to show notability (per WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT). Not to be confused with the platform of the same name. Aoidh (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Israel, and New York. Aoidh (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Note that there was a page move after the nom and before your !vote. JTtheOG (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jennings Lake

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

Non-notable minor geographical feature in Antarctica. Nothing to suggest the notability criteria for inclusion have been met. JMWt (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Antarctica. JMWt (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I predict Amery Ice Shelf. Uncle G (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jennings Promontory#Jennings Lake. The promontory is notable for its charnockite, and is the obvious parent since it melts into the lake, which separates it from the abovementioned ice shelf. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jennings Promontory#Jennings Lake. Article has been here since 2010 and has not accumulated meaningful sources for stand alone article. Only 1 source is there. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FindSALT

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

I propose the deletion of the FindSALT Wikipedia page due to its lack of notability, as it relies on limited sources that do not provide substantial independent coverage or establish its significance within the restaurant industry. Mapsama (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Keep I lean toward keeping this article. There is independent coverage in gulf news and Conde Nast traveler. The fact that someone had to clarify that the restaurant in london is not from UAE also suggests notability to me.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep LLM'ed/boilerplate rationale without one original word from the nominator themselves. Nathannah • 📮 12:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beehype

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

I can't find any in-depth coverage of this magazine. Lots of mentions, it exists, but I can't find anything that would indicate it passes WP:GNG. If others can, and it is eventually kept, it does not need the dab in the title. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Websites, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In case this article is kept, Please move the article to Beehype (redirect to itself). Current title includes unnessesary disambiguation. Thanks and no opinion on the AFD itself. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has now been moved (mid-AfD). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Oxford Handbook of Social Media and Music Learning refers to it as a source of info on emerging musicians and bands in Poland [35]. That's a book from a very reputable publisher using it as a source. Apart from that, I'm still searching for Beehype -honey, as it's also the name of at least one brand of honey. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30-2024/aditi-saigal-aka-dot-winning-with-words-and-melody/91751/1

[1]