Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

3 April 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 02	April 04 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Margo Savchuk

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

Fails WP:BIO. Not seeing any demonstrated notability for this person. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. And this is an obvious spam article. Skazi (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prisca Singamo

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

Declined prod. The added non database sources are small mentions and not SIGCOV for meeting WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 22:11, 3 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) 22:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sambucha

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

Declined PROD. Non-notable YouTuber. A WP:BEFORE shows a lack of coverage in reliable sources, and notability is clearly lacking. No evidence that subject warrants a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New Jersey. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dillon Barna

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:SPORTSBASIC due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The current sources are either primary or are interviews, while a BEFORE came up with namedrops such as [[1]] but little else. Let'srun (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Arizona, California, and Missouri. Let'srun (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arvid Andersen

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

Subject dose not appear to me to be notable, corresponding danish article's only source is a dead database, and never directly linked to a specific page on that database. Gnisacc (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G10 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Kate Cornett

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

A WP:BLP horror story. I don't care if it appeared in the NYT, this is obviously something we don't want to draw attention to, and I don't see the lasting significance. Mangoe (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What the actual fuck? Who thought this was the appropriate subject for an article. A low profile individual who is clearly a WP:BLP1E]. Wikipedia articles stick around far longer the news coverage, and this poor woman least of all deserves this hanging around her neck for the rest of her life. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an important encyclopedic case about defamation. If it cannot be kept, it should be retargeted to Pat McAfee. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You created an article about a real, low profile living person. not a case about defamation. If there's a significant legal case about this then the article should be there. As is there's no reason for a standalone article about someone who's sole claim to notability is a salacious false rumor. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am also OK with a rename. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A rename to what? There's no content here except one salacious sentence. And I seriously doubt this woman would like a redirect here of her name to an article about someone she's suing. I'm trying to AGF but deciding to create this page is questionable. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that this might have legal ramifications later is not a good reason to give a megaphone to slander now. Qwirkle (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this inappropriate garbage, which is not only a BLP1E but pure BLP violation and borderline attack page. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 21:40, 3 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.

Just Detention International

AfDs for this article:

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

Partial recreation of article previously deleted via AFD. Still fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (article creator). Not a recreation (I don't know what the article said in 2019), just an article about the same topic. I think the sources cited in the article show that it passes WP:GNG, if not additional coverage can readily be found in Google Books, Wikipedia Library, etc.Prezbo (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Post-presidency of Joe Biden

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

WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV - Not notable enough to warrant an entirely separate article from Biden himself. Most content here is either already written in or could easily be added to Joe Biden#Post-presidency. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also for reference no other 21st century presidents (except Bill Clinton, but that's a technicality) have a post-presidency article. And seeing as Biden's post-presidency will in all likelihood be shorter, if not significantly shorter, than Bush '43's or Obama's, I can't see how he can warrant a separate article. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Joe Biden#Post-presidency_(2025–present) I'd say "merge" except that what's in addition to the material already in the main article is passing with unimportant detail. Mangoe (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drop Dead! (Argentine band)

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

The band has not become more notable since the last deletion discussion in 2009. The band lacks coverage in reliable sources (most sources are self-published, not independent, or lacking significant coverage), and other WP:BAND criteria are not met. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 20:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 20:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Epoch Networks

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

Fails WP:NORG; WP:BEFORE fails with Google/DDG search; one ref, the first ISP Planet ref, seems reliable, but is old, stands alone, and is from a specialist/industry publication that no longer exists. Second ref only discusses the ISP in passing with greater emphasis on its founder. Apparently survived a PROD in 2006. /over.throws/^they+✎ 20:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. /over.throws/^they+✎ 20:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshpontha

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

Fails WP:NOTDICT and also WP:GNG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a blog WP:NOTBLOG or not a newspaper WP:NOTNEWS

Bongan^® →TalkToMe← 21:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Slot English Series On 2 TV2 (Malaysia)

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

Non-notable list with insufficient context. 90% of entries are listed as "Coming Soon". PROD was removed by the author. Johnj1995 (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Malaysia. Skynxnex (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Age dysphoria

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

Medical article currently sourced to non WP:MEDRS sources, plus one possible RS that doesn't mention the topic. (Note that the item with an NHS web address is a letter of suggestion that someone submitted to the NHS, not content with actual NHS backing.) This was a rework of the previous version which used different sources, but similarly lacking in either reliability or mentioning the topic (there was one that had the words "age" and "dysphoria" in a row, but as separate items on a list.) Checking Google Scholar results, there are four results that appear to be addressing the term. I do not have access to some of the full items, but one is a note of comment on an earlier piece from the Archives of Sexual Behavior, one from the Journal of Experiential Psychotherapy (2021) says "Age dysphoria is a concept that we propose and that we will operationalize and validate in the next stages of the longitudinal study", indicating that it is a novel and original source; one appears to be from a law journal rather than a medical one, and one from The Gerentologist is an article primarily about age descrimination and seems to be using the term in a differen manner than the article's subject (i.e., a difference between "real age and prefered age", not the perceived age of the article's subject.) So there doesn't seem to be enough MEDRS to reach sufficient notability for this. Nat Gertler (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC) Appending: I did do a Duck-duck-go search to address WP:BEFORE, and failed to find any further sufficiently reliable sources. Did that before posting the AfD, just forgot to mention it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, I still consider Pubmed to be the gold standard for medical lit indexing (I hope the current administration doesn't "fix" it), and there are ZERO hits with the term either with or without brackets. [2]. I don't think this is a valid medical term. Lack of RS, should be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of samurai

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't see the purpose of this list. It is too long to assist browsing, but certainly is missing a lot of persons. It lacks citations. Also, there are multiple definitions of samurai. It is commonly used to refer to warriors, but originally meant servant and refers to retainers. Many of the current entries are lords, and therefore depending on the definition should be excluded. This means the list isn't very helpful and could lead to disputes if anyone cared about it. DrGlef (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Military, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Alphabetical list, with most items in the list having articles, I couldn't ask for a better place to look for info on the topic. Easy !keep Oaktree b (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if additional information is added, otherwise this is essentially a duplication of Category:Samurai plus redlinks. Also, is Yasumero Kenshin a ninja lurking in the X section? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Satelli D'Or Film Festival

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

Suspected WP:HOAX that has been on Wikipedia for sixteen years. I could find no evidence of the existence of this film festival (or the founder) online or in newspaper archives. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is certainly hoax material. No results on Newspapers.com for 'Satelli D'Or' (using TWL), and Ancestry.com only came back with one result for an Ernest Satelli (which seems to be a person named Ernest Santell who died in 1992 in Illinois, not 1989 as the article states). Furthermore, no actual substance of the Satelli D'Or article has been written since the 2009 edits by users Maxzilla2005 and Doctorannabelle (a combined 16 edits on Wikipedia, 15 of which are on the Satelli D'Or), and in my eyes cements the existence of the hoax. Ré union! 18:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely nothing found about this festival online or its founder. It's completely implausible for a film festival in which M. Night Shyamalan and Marc Forster etc. have featured to not have at least some coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the more I look at it the more I'm convinced this is fake. If this indeed does pass as a hoax, it should be moved to the Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, which would make it the 22nd longest-lived hoax on Wikipedia. Ré union! 19:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Cage White

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

WP:GNG: Google News, cites already on page include chance mentions and one-off articles. This existing coverage is sporadic and non-significant. Should be mentioned that main Google search indicates this individual is considered a niche lolcow. /over.throws/^they+✎ 18:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /over.throws/^they+✎ 18:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and China. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freight terminal

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

Article is a simple definition (with a dubious claim about most freight terminals being ports after saying that a loading dock is a kind of freight terminal). The articles linked to in this article seem like a sufficient coverage of the topic Gnisacc (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What I see now is a DICDEF. There's no point keeping this. Oaktree b (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Musa Al Hafiz

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

Does not demonstrate notability (people) Somajyoti ✉ 17:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. Somajyoti ✉ 17:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google Giggles

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

Not a real product, and not particularly notable hoax. Some of these sources aren't actually talking about Google Giggles but instead YouTube shorts, some are just talking about a meme. And a few of the sources just have the word Google Giggle together as an alliteration. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Art Arena

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

This article about a "planned" museum has been around since 2010. While I'm not sure what the status of the museum is the only live source I could find about it was on the Roland Collection website. I don't see how this meets the WP:GNG in any way. Yeshivish613 (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and England. Yeshivish613 (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, a "planned" museum that never appears to have happened, almost 20 yrs ago. PROMO gone bad, delete this. I see no current (or any) links to this project. Oaktree b (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe0nHead

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

Fails GNG. She has received some brief mentions due to her roles in promoting conspiracy theories about Balenciaga[3] and tweeting about online influencer dramas, but has not been relevant enough to get multiple sources providing her WP:SIGCOV. Maybe this page could be merged to Balenciaga#Child advertising controversy.

[4][5][6] Very brief mentions of the subject, little to no original commentary about Lapine herself.
[7] Only one paragraph worth of original commentary about Lapine.
[8] No original commentary about Lapine, the article only describes her opinions about someone else
[9] Unreliable, apparent content-mill source. It presents no meaningful original commentary on Lapine, beyond a single sentence introduction of who she is.
[10] An WP:INTERVIEW where Lapine talks about herself and Trump supporters, this source is not WP:INDEPENDENT from the subject when it comes to the statements made about her. Badbluebus (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent Singapore source (which is unrelated to The Independent), besides paraphrasing her opinions, does also paraphrases the opinion of another youtuber about her. Technically, that is some form of third party commentary, but it is not reliable (WP:NOTRS directly talks about sources that heavily rely on unreliable opinions). Badbluebus (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Politics, Internet, and United States of America. Badbluebus (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article can be moved to the draft namespace and get cleaned up? I'm not incredibly familiar with that process but given that the article is about a public figure who some may consider significant, it may make more sense than completely deleting it. In my opinion, it makes the most sense to convert the article into a stub and remove the unreliable sources. Azeelea (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should remove Vaush, Kyle Kulinski, and others’ pages too, then. 205.178.91.134 (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.Badbluebus (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She seems to have notability even if the sourcing of the article is terrible. Agree with Azeelea that the unreliable sources should be removed. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 19:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any sources, or any WP:N policy or guideline, to establish that this subject is notable? In my BEFORE, the sources not in the article also lacked WP:SIGCOV [11][12]. A WP:SIRS source eval would be helpful here. Badbluebus (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concur with Lollipoplollipoplollipop, the sourcing ain't good but the solution should be to fix the article, preferably without moving to draft. Flimbone08 ; talk 21:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Editors arguing to Keep haven't provided any additional reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inamorata (Metallica song)

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

WP:NSONG clearly states the following: Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label [...] Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. This song unfortunately falls under the latter category.

I have done a great deal of research on this song and the album in general (as I plan to one day get 72 Seasons to GA), and I have come to the conclusion that Inamorata is not notable outside of 72 Seasons. All coverage of the song in reliable, secondary sources can basically be summarized to the following: "Metallica just released their longest song ever, go check it out!" or "Metallica just played their longest song ever live for the first time, go check out the VOD!", without offering any actual significant coverage or critical commentary towards the song itself. Instead, pretty much anything that actually has anything to say about the song is in the context of album reviews, which don't demonstrate notability; every opinion currently in the reception section is cited to album reviews except for one article that is mostly just demonstrating fan responses to the song. But obviously, fan opinions aren't useful here. The only thing that the song actually has going for it was charting in one lower-level, genre-specific chart in a singular region. However, every song from 72 Seasons also charted on that chart at the same time before each song quickly fell off shortly afterwards. Plus, NSONG clearly states that charting doesn't automatically make a song notable and has to be combined with sufficient coverage in other sources, which this song does not have, so that should be discarded. Hell, there's not even any "best songs of 2023" rankings or "Best Metallica song" rankings out there that cover Inamorata, and I'm usually an advocate for rankings being able to provide significant-coverage depending on how much meat the ranking has in regards to covering the song. But again, Inamorata has nothing on that front.

TL;DR: As a result of the lack of critical commentary and coverage beyond album reviews and run-of-the-mill coverage, Inamorata fails NSONG, and anything that can be said about the song can be easily summarized in the article for 72 Seasons, which this should be redirected to. λ NegativeMP1 04:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 04:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - GNG and NSONG are based on the available sources, not just the sources currently in the article. And Inamorata is covered in at least 2 books that I could find - Metallica: The Stories Behind the Songs and Metallica All the Songs, with the latter in particular providing an extensive discussion of the song and its origin and production. Further, the Loudwire source linked in the article is not UGC - it has some discussion of the song including a Loudwire critic's review of the song before it then provides quotes from fans (that Loudwire selected). Further, Loudwire also published another article about the song here, so combining these 2 articles I would say that Loudwire is a significant independent source. So in my opinion the song meets GNG and NSONG. Rlendog (talk)

Abhishek Awasthi

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL for not occupying any notable political office, and WP:GNG for not having sufficient sources that satisfy WP:IRS and covers them substantially. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Australia. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Abhiimanyu7 (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Both appear to be rather minor political positions, this person wouldn't pass NPOL. They exist and have coverage, but nothing notable about them. Oaktree b (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Himachal Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject holds position in a notable city, and has coverage by both Australian an Indian media. There are more than enough sources to indicate that the subject holds notability in more than just passing mentions in media. Viatori (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khaldoun Sweis

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

The subject does not appear to meet the criteria in WP:NACADEMIC in spite of years of opportunity to do so. It seems kind of a strech for an associate professor to be notable. There are name-drops about who interviewed him, and a list of his publications, but that doesn't confer notability. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely needs cleanup to remove the promotional material for his self-developed coaching method and his self-published CreateSpace book. Not notable as an academic, but he passes WP:NAUTHOR as the co-editor of Debating Christian Theism, which has received multiple reviews in independent sources, including International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, The Journal of Theological Studies, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Philos, Theological Studies; and co-editor of Christian Apologetics, which has also received multiple independent reviews in the Heythrop Journal and the Southeastern Theological Review. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darshana TV

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

I am nominating this article for deletion as it Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; WP:Before search did not find sufficient sourcing. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shekinah TV

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

I am nominating this article for deletion as it Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; WP:Before search did not find sufficient sourcing. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest TV

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

I am nominating this article for deletion as it Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; WP:Before search did not find sufficient sourcing. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness (TV channel)

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

I am nominating this article for deletion as it Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; WP:Before search did not find sufficient sourcing. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeevan TV

AfDs for this article:

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

I am nominating this article for deletion as it Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; WP:Before search did not find sufficient sourcing. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of obsolete technology

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

This article has very few sources. I looked at the sources online and there doesn't seem to be many reliable sources covering this topic. Interstellarity (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'd probably !keep this if the items were sourced... This is too long for an unsourced article and seems willy nilly as a list. Typewriters and a toasting fork? Oaktree b (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A better place would be the list fandom. I have copied over the complete editing history of this article, all 167 revisions, to https://list.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_obsolete_technology Dream Focus 19:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a useful reference list in the history of science, not merely a fun collection. I majored in Science, Technology, and Society in college, and when considering theories of technological invention and adoption, this field is often driven by case studies. I did a DDG search for "obsolete technologies" and got a ton of listicles, so creating a list like this is definitely not an original idea. Listicles are not reliable sources, but all the listed items have articles and are mentioned in history of technology articles, and it's perfectly possible to go through and pull reliable sources documenting that each specific technology has been partly or completely replaced by others. Yes, when lists like these are scoped to the entirety of human invention, technologies in very different fields will be included. Typewriters and toasting forks share an interesting attribute in common; when you collect a few of these technological case studies into a coherent theory, you get books like The Innovator's Dilemma. We do have List of emerging technologies, which similarly requires compilation across all of human invention scoped to a specific attribute, and we've managed to do an excellent job sourcing that. List of obsolete technology is currently being a list of examples to illustrate the Technological section of Obsolescence, but could be better organized and linked with throughlines in other articles. For example, we have History of timekeeping devices which describes the obsolescence of several listed items; I'll link that in now. If this is kept, I can work on pulling in sources. -- Beland (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the listicles actually do come from sources WP:RS/PS marks as reliable, like this one from Gizmodo. If publications covering the state of technology find it useful to make collections of notable obsolete technologies, it seems reasonable for Wikipedia to have the most comprehensive and well-referenced version of that, which combines the lists and individual examples from a variety of sources. -- Beland (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too broad a criterion. MS-DOS, floppy disk, ship of the line, chariot, corset, icebox, rickshaw, slide rule, etc., where does it end? Every technology becomes obsolete eventually. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of technologies haven't and won't forseeably become obsolete - knife, shoe, mirror, bicycle, loudspeaker. At bottom, the list should be limited by notability - technologies that don't have a Wikipedia article don't need to be listed. But well before that, technologies can be grouped by type and a link provided only to an overview article. For example, List of emerging technologies doesn't list every single product or specific invention in a given emerging area (e.g. genetic engineering is listed, not CRISPR). So List of obsolete technology doesn't need to include everything in, for example, Category:Discontinued software, but should look more like a list version of Category:Obsolete technologies. The benefit of a list over a category is that a list can add context as to why a technology was abandoned, mention the replacement technology if any, and be sortable by date. -- Beland (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRIT, as there's absolutely no reasonable way to decide what qualifies as "obsolete". The claimed definition in the lead isn't even remotely adhered to in the body of the list (and doesn't make much sense anyway). Indeed, a significant portion of the entries on the list even admit that they're still in use, so are they truly obsolete or not? And as pointed out above, this is so broad and universal (in the way that practically everything becomes obsolete eventually), that's it's essentially useless to readers. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, listicles don't count toward demonstrating notability! They're low-quality churn meant to drive clicks. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about notability of the individual technologies or the idea of technological obsolescence? Each of the individual technologies listed needs to demonstrate notability independent from being obsolete. The general idea that technologies become obsolete is certainly notable apart from listicles - it's well-studied academically, including case studies and comparisons. See for example, the huge number of Google scholar matches. Beland (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as it is the same article as the single-purpose account has been creating since 2008 and was deleted in the prior AFD discussion. I don't see consenus changing, moreover. Uncle G (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)‎[reply]

FlagShip (compiler)

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

Advertising effort playing out here. In addition, I have not seen any sources that make this subject notable for an article here CPDJay (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software. CPDJay (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4: "Tag: Recreated", deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlagShip. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete - I found no good refs. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:16, 3 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.

Katrina Johansson

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

Non notable musician. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists. There needs to be coverage about them or their work. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only sources are database-type, and can't find anything that should qualify on my own searches Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete‎ as G5 by Ponyo (talk · contribs). --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Encore (ABJ)

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

Have not seen the sources that make this subject notable for an article CPDJay (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and India. CPDJay (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: I've deleted this per WP:CSD#G5.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:21, 3 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.

Zheng Guangzhao

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

Does not meet GNG, and this person's positions fail to meet NPOL criteria either Cinder painter (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and China. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article erroneously stated that he was party secretary of Inner Mongolia, a position that would probably make him automatically notable. Based on the cited sources, he is only party secretary of the Inner Mongolia Public Security Department, which is not a position that makes him automatically notable. I have corrected the article accordingly.

Though he is not automatically notable under NPOL, I have not yet done a search for sources to check if the GNG is met. Toadspike [Talk] 22:30, 28 March 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. Zhuang, Yu 庄彧 (2021-06-22). "郑光照任商洛市委书记(图|简历)" [Zheng Guangzhao is appointed as the Party Secretary of Shangluo Municipal Committee (Photo | Resume)]. Economic Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-08-12. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "据中国经济网地方党政领导人物库资料显示，郑光照，1966年9月出生，2016年起任商洛市委副书记、市长。原任商洛市委书记的郭永红近日已任陕西省副省长。郑光照，男，汉族，1966年9月出生，陕西礼泉人，1988年11月参加工作，1998年12月加入中国共产党，研究生学历，经济学学士。"
  From Google Translate: "According to the database of local party and government leaders of China Economic Net, Zheng Guangzhao was born in September 1966 and has served as deputy secretary and mayor of Shangluo Municipal Party Committee since 2016. Guo Yonghong, the former secretary of Shangluo Municipal Party Committee, has recently been appointed as vice governor of Shaanxi Province. Zheng Guangzhao, male, Han nationality, born in September 1966, from Liquan, Shaanxi Province, started working in November 1988, joined the Communist Party of China in December 1998, has a postgraduate degree, and a bachelor's degree in economics."
2. Shi, Lanlan 石兰兰 (2016-08-27). "郑光照当选商洛市市长(图|简历)" [Zheng Guangzhao was elected mayor of Shangluo City (photo | resume)]. Economic Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "据中国经济网党政领导人物库资料显示，郑光照，1966年9月生，此前担任渭南市委常委、常务副市长，近日已任商洛市委副书记、市政府党组书记；原任商洛市长的是陈俊，女，1960年10月出生，近日已任商洛市委书记（相关报道）。"
  From Google Translate: "According to the data of the Party and Government Leaders Database of China Economic Net, Zheng Guangzhao, born in September 1966, previously served as a member of the Standing Committee of the Weinan Municipal Party Committee and Executive Vice Mayor, and has recently been appointed as the Deputy Secretary of the Shangluo Municipal Party Committee and Secretary of the Party Group of the Municipal Government; the former Shangluo Mayor is Chen Jun, female, born in October 1960, and has recently been appointed as the Secretary of the Shangluo Municipal Party Committee (related reports)."
3. Hai, Jun 海军 (2022-12-04). Zhang, Xuedong 张雪冬; Liu, Ze 刘泽 (eds.). "郑光照在凉城县宣讲党的二十大精神并开展林长制巡查工作" [Zheng Guangzhao preached the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in Liangcheng County and carried out forest chief system inspection work]. Inner Mongolia Daily [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "11月28日，自治区副主席、公安厅厅长郑光照到乌兰察布市凉城县，为机关干部和基层民警宣讲党的二十大精神。"
  From Google Translate: "On 28 November 28, Zheng Guangzhao, Vice Chairman of the Autonomous Region and Director of the Public Security Department, went to Liangcheng County, Ulanqab City, to preach the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the Party to cadres and grassroots police."
4. "郑光照同志简介" [Brief introduction of Comrade Zheng Guangzhao]. Inner Mongolia Daily [zh] (in Chinese). 2022-07-29. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "郑光照，男，汉族，1966年9月生，在职研究生，中共党员，现任内蒙古自治区副主席、政府党组成员，自治区公安厅党委书记、厅长、督察长，自治区党委政法委副书记（兼）。"
  From Google Translate: "Zheng Guangzhao, male, Han nationality, born in September 1966, is a postgraduate student and a member of the Communist Party of China. He is currently the Vice Chairman of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region and a member of the Party Leadership Group of the Government, the Party Secretary, Director and Inspector General of the Autonomous Region Public Security Department, and the Deputy Secretary of the Political and Legal Affairs Commission of the Autonomous Region Party Committee (concurrently)."
5. Li, Zhiqiang 李志强 (2016-08-06). "陈俊任陕西商洛市委书记郑光照任商洛市委副书记" [Chen Jun is appointed as the Secretary of the CPC Shangluo Municipal Committee, and Zheng Guangzhao is appointed as the Deputy Secretary of the CPC Shangluo Municipal Committee] (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "郑光照，男，汉族，1966年9月出生，陕西礼泉人，1988年11月参加工作，1998年12月加入中国共产党，研究生学历，经济学学士。历任咸阳市粮油食品土畜产品外贸公司副经理，长武县副县长，"
  From Google Translate: "Zheng Guangzhao, male, Han nationality, born in September 1966, from Liquan, Shaanxi Province, started working in November 1988, joined the Communist Party of China in December 1998, has a postgraduate degree, and a bachelor's degree in economics. He has served as deputy manager of Xianyang Cereals, Oils, Foods, Local Products and Livestock Foreign Trade Company, deputy county magistrate of Changwu County, ..."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zheng Guangzhao (simplified Chinese: 郑光照; traditional Chinese: 鄭光照) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tafsir Ishraq Al-Ma'ani

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

I searched the internet for WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, but it didn’t work.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 14:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 14:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Betiton

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

Refences in this article are made up of press releases, primary sources and marketing copies distributed to other websites. Check well and you find nothing solid and credible per WP:NCORP. CPDJay (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Malta. CPDJay (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KC Nwakalor

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

Non notable photojournalist whose works are paid for projects by organizations and only attributed to him and the organizations he works for. All of the cited sources do not discuss him and his works directly or indirectly but only attributed to him. The attribution is a standard practice acknowledging copyright owners and cannot be used for notability CPDJay (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Photography, and Nigeria. CPDJay (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Bacon

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

I created this article at the request of the Women in Red project. User:Billsmith60 doesn’t think she is notable but their own WP:AFD submission was incorrectly formatted so I am bringing it here myself for the community to decide. Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Architecture. Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Top (Bini song)

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

WP:NSONG, there is no cover from independent sources or even primary sources. Besides, the song is a promotional single so I guess maybe the news outlets do not cover this song. ROY is WAR Talk! 12:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Philippines. ROY is WAR Talk! 12:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ROY is WAR Talk! 12:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bini discography. "Top" is a promotional song of the group Bini released on March 7, 2025. Despite being released for nearly a month now, the song has not received WP:SIGCOV from independent sources, yet even a single announcement that the single was released, failing both WP:NRV and WP:NSONG. Redirecting it to Bini discography may be appropriate in this case per WP:ATD-R. AstrooKai (Talk) 13:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Globus Bank

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

no reliable sources (NCORP), routine or affiliate sources only. Unicorbia (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CreditWise Capital

AfDs for this article:

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

Founding, partnership and other routine media references with no reliable multiple significant sourcing Unicorbia (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Azu Punia

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of SIG COV in secondary reliable sources also this article was created by a user named Azu Punia (same as article name) so there could be chances of WP:COI TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, India, and Haryana. TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - History shows article was created in mainspace, then moved into Draft, then back to mainspace - all by same user. JoeNMLC (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy. No assertion of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrobics

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

Was previously soft deleted at Quadrobers. Appears to be a flash in the pan Russian furry-adjacent subculture where every source exists from a tiny window of time where this blew up into a moral panic. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The subject is notable, as demonstrated by 33 (!!!) reliable sources.
The English-language sources include:
1. Vogue: "Quadrobics is the fitness trend that improves all-over strength (and your abs)", 5 July 2024
2. New Indian Express: "Quadrobics: low-impact, high-intensity workout", 21 July 2024
3. The Manual (via Yahoo Life): "Quadrobics is a full-body workout surging in popularity — Here’s what to know", 10 December 2024
4. Women Health Magazine: "Horsing around: what is quadrobics and how do you do it?", 8 January 2025
The Russian-language sources include RIA Novosti, Vedomosti, Russian Public Opinion Research Center, Channel One Russia, RBC, Hi-Tech Mail, Izvestia, Gazeta.Ru, Lenta.ru, big Russian sports portals like Sports.ru [ru] and Championat.ru [ru]. Actually, too many to mention.
And just take a look at the Russian Wikipedia page (ru:Квадроберы) that has a stunning count of 70,000 characters. I have no idea why the nominator insists the subject is unnotable. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment. The nominator is the same user who wanted to delete the "Quadrobers" article back in January. The article has been edited/improved by many people and it seems that Warrenmck is the only one who has found something wrong (or inappropriate?) with it. In January, he argued that it was "a mostly unsourced flash-in-the-pan subculture or moral panic" and that "every source is from the same roughly one month window in Russia". Neither was true. The article was carefully sourced even back then, and the publications used as references were from as early as May 2024 and as late as December 2024. Now, there's at least one from 2025. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some Russian articles about quadrobics:
1. RBC Life: "What is quadrobics: Is it a sport or not. Why do they want to ban the quadrobics in Russia", 23 May 2024;
2. Mail.ru: "Quadrobics: What you need to know about a new hobby", 5 August 2024.
3. The Moscow Times (in English): "What is quadrobics, Russia's viral but divisive youth culture, 13 September 2024;

But, as I've said, there're too many to list here.
Therefore, if even this were an article about a Russia-only subculture (as the nominator argues), its subject would still pass WP:GNG.
(But it is not specific to Russia.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some more English-language sources, currently unused:
1. BBC: "Quadrobic panic in Russia over craze to dress and walk on ...", 27 February 2025
  (I can't look at and use this one cause bbc.com isn't working for me.)
2. Barron's: "Fur flies as Russia takes on young fans of 'Quadrobics'", 8 November 2024

--Moscow Connection (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the author of both this article and the previously deleted one. I'm failing to see any sources that don't come from outside a tiny window of time when it was a flash in the pan meme in Russia. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is the person who tried to delete the "Quadrobers" article in January. And the sole person on Wikipedia who finds it "inappropriate" or whatever.
"I'm failing to see any sources that don't come from outside a tiny window of time when it was a flash in the pan meme in Russia."
— OMG, I've listed several here. Some were published as early as May 2024. And they already were listed in this article back in January. I wonder why you couldn't see them and still can't. I've also listed two from 2025 right here today. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSUSTAINED is the issue, here.

Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability.

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a year it's in the news. That's already not a "brief burst of news coverage".
Moreover, the four English-language sources I listed in my first comment aren't even news articles. They just talk about quadrobics in general, as a workout. They explain what it is. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except that isn't sustained over a year, it seems to mostly be English press occasionally picking up the situation in Russia and covering that offset in time, i.e. a huge amount of those sources are about the exact same event (in this case the virality of Quadrobing in Russia occasionally as it relates to LGBTQ+ persecution in Russia) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you think so. Quadrobics is not just about Russia. Quadrobics is still trending on YouTube, TikTok, and probably on Instagram too. There's also a "Quadrobics" subreddit, it is alive and well. Quadrobics isn't going anywhere. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV and nontrivial impact. --Altenmann >talk 15:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Coins

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

Article is based on a single, primary source. There doesn't appear to be any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that would establish notability to warrant a standalone article. Dfadden (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Australia. Dfadden (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chhagan Mehetre

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

Not elected to any state level or national level assembly or office. Lacks WP:SIGCOV in secondary reliable sources thus fails, WP:GNG TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Maharashtra. TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Instone

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

Business person does business things. Previously PROD'd as non-notable, then restored. Now tagged for notability. Let the discussion begin. Fails WP:SIGCOV so fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Finance, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdfense

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

Typical advertising spam and not notable company that deserves to be deleted Xrimonciam (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The Vice piece cited in the article is fine, and together with this: [13] might be just enough to clear the NCORP bar. I don't think the article is ad-like at all, at least not compared to the pages for most startups that end up at AfD.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are a total of two pages of hits on GNews. Two pages. The sources there are all routine coverage, mentions, unreliable sources (e.g., blogs), and routine announcements. The Vice reference may meet the minimum threshold for ORGCRIT, but in no way is there enough significant coverage to come close to the minimum requirement of NCORP.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of significant coverage in reliable source. Zuck28 (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm the page creator. I trust the AfD process to determine notability and obviously recurse myself from voting (if I was to vote, I would agree with Weak Keep), however I strongly object to the claim of "Typical advertising spam." I have no affiliation with the company, have a history of anti-vandalism work, and I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia.

While I'm here, I want to offer another source on top of what @WeirdNAnnoyed provided: https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/06/price-of-zero-day-exploits-rises-as-companies-harden-products-against-hackers/. Please note WP:TECHCRUNCH, however the article appears to be written by a staff writer without a COI, so thus should be sufficient in contributing to notability.

Thanks, Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 00:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources don't prove notability and my searching didn't find anything else useful. Moritoriko (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The vice source is okay. I don't think the TechCrunch article counts as significant coverage. If they had sold a zero day exploit to someone that had an effect (that has been publicly reported) I think that would show how it is a notable company. Moritoriko (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Deletion argument is misguided. The article is true to its sources and is only "spam" in the sense that the company intentionally made bold claims to get press coverage and then did. On the other hand, making a splash one time in 2018 does not meet my bar for keep. Regardless of outcome, thank you @Scaledish for writing this article. Brandon (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep Misguided nomination, and # of hits in Google News is not a measure of notability. ITP article is trivial, but Vice (2x articles) and Techcrunch articles meet the threshold for WP:ORGCRIT. If requested, I can do the work of sourcing the article to meet the Heymann standard. Hmr (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned GNews, not because it is a measure of notability. If there are only two pages in GNews, it is a strong indicator the press don't feel the topic is worthy of being covered. If there were enough sources meeting ORGCRIT (there are not), I would have done HEY myself.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Life of Guru Nanak Through Pictures

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

Cited or listed a few times in books about Sikhism but little significant coverage. I found one review that I cannot really access but it seems a standard length academic journal review so that's one [14]. This could have something on the book but I cannot verify whether it is significant [15]. There may be more in whatever language this was originally published in but I was unable to find the original title. The source in the article mentions the book but doesn't mention what we are citing it for (that it was judged one of the best by the president - they're talking about an artist, not the book). This mentions the best thing again but is only one sentence [16] Fails WP:NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Sikhism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 3 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. Missed C3 qualification for NPROF. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Macabuag

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

Withdrawn by nominator - missed the Royal Academy fellowship, thanks to Nfutvol.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was a contested Prod, and this is difficult to evaluate. I think this is borderline, but I think he doesn't quite rise to the level of meeting either WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes NPROF C3 based on being a fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. nf utvol (talk) 13:27, 3 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.

Pascal Michon

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

While accomplished, I can't find any in-depth coverage of him, and while there is another person with this name who is widely referenced, this person is not, and I can't find anything to show that he passes WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, History, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching only JSTOR found ten reviews of four books, now added to the article. Probably there are more elsewhere. This is enough for a pass of WP:AUTHOR, and (since they are in-depth publications by others about his work) for WP:GNG as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramiro Navarro

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

Non-notable WP:COOKIE sportsman who failed WP:NSPORT and WP:BEFORE. As for the sources listed in the article, the first source is basically a database and nothing else, and the second source does not work as either an original link nor on the Wayback Machine, but works on Archive Today. What I could gather from that second source is only a passing mention of Navarro and nothing else.

I had WP:PRODed the article, but then EchetusXe (talk · contribs), the article's creator, removed the tag because they thought it looked silly. However, I do not believe this is the right faith to de-PROD an article, as Navarro is a run-of-a-mill sports bio. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Playing for Mexico at the 1966 FIFA World Cup is run of the mill? That is a common, everyday thing? 15 other Wikipedia language articles have the article. You cite the article fails WP:NSPORT. Are you aware that association football/soccer is not mentioned in that guideline? You mention WP:BEFORE, so I appreciate that "the minimum search expected is a normal Google search". However, I would suggest that a sportsman in Mexico (a Spanish-speaking country) during the 1960s might not result in a great deal of Google results 60 years later.Echetus Xe 13:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, I know the 1966 FIFA World Cup is a significant event covered by many reliable sources, but Navarro, an individual footballer, playing in this event to make him stand out from his teammates or opponents (some of whom are equally non-notable)? That is subjective importance and falls under WP:ONEEVENT. Not to mention this person has been cited by sources that lacked WP:SIGCOV, even the fourth source, although it does mention that Navarro did assaulted a referee in 1967, is pretty much nothing more than a mere passing mention.
  
  At this point, a preferable WP:ATD in my opinion is to redirect to 1966 FIFA World Cup squads § Mexico, where Navarro and his birth date are mentioned. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Bautista Cambiaso Valdez

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

Can't find any in-depth coverage of this person from independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dominican Republic-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matúš Körös

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

Young Slovak footballer who only played 96 minutes of professional league. My secondary searches are limited to passing mentions, such as this one. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Alves (footballer, born 1982)

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

Non-notable WP:COOKIE sportsman who failed WP:NSPORT and WP:BEFORE. PROD failed because Geschichte (talk · contribs) thought Alves' career might indicate significant coverage, but I see it as subjective importance and doesn't actually adhere to WP:SIGCOV. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Soto Chalhoub

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

Created by a single purpose account. I don't believe he meets WP:BIO. Could only find namesakes in google news and books searches. LibStar (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of srinagar (Garhwal)

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

Lack of sources and notability. Some phrasing is suspiciously vague, e.g., "The occupation of Srinagar marked a major victory for Kumaon, showcasing its military strength". Cinder painter (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttarakhand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of srinagar (Garhwal)

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

Lack of sources and notability. Some phrasing is suspiciously vague, e.g., "The occupation of Srinagar marked a major victory for Kumaon, showcasing its military strength". Cinder painter (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttarakhand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Phoenix Project (San Francisco)

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

lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, suggesting it does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Xrimonciam (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Xrimonciam Can you please outline what you did WP:BEFORE? And are you familiar with WP:DEL-CONTENT?

Also, how familiar are you with the political advocacy scene of the San Francisco Bay Area? I scrolled back through between 1,000 and 1,500 of your last edits and don't see any edits that are obviously about san francisco. While it's entirely possible I missed one or two because it was a quick skim, if that's the case, it would be only one or two edits related to san francisco - which is why I ask the question.

Thanks! Iknowyoureadog (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First three sources seem decent enough with significant coverage. I'd say that they were sufficient to establish notability. SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ionel Armean

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

Failing WP:SPORTCRIT, this footballer has only played in one first tier, the non-professional one of Estonia. The sole non-database source in the article is a match report from an U19 match which he refereed (!). Fails WP:GNG as well. Geschichte (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Flashpoint (comics) characters

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

A list of characters for a specific comic book story arc. This is not separately notable as a concept, as the characters of Flashpoint have received little coverage individually of their mainline counterparts. A search yielded nothing. All major plot relevant characters are covered in the plot section of Flashpoint, so I would support a Redirect here as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A reasonable WP:SPLIT. Remember that WP:NLIST indicates that list can be kept for navigational reasons; adding sources and removing material/spitting the page is necessary, though, which are cleanup issues. -Mushy Yank. 09:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims that were made by @Mushy Yank:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, a core content policy. There isn't a single non-primary source here, nor does there seem to be any discussion in sources of this grouping per WP:NLIST. This is merely the broader characters that appear in some story arc, many of which have articles due to independent notability, but not because they're in this specific arc, and so Mushy Yank's claim that this is a valid navigational list is just flat wrong. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but precisely because most characters have a page, a list is even more helpful in terms of navigation. WP:NLIST clearly states that although "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists" "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." (emphasis mine; but maybe that too is "flat wrong"_. Also in terms of size, put back all this content in the article would make navigation extremely uneasy and a split is necessary. (But you have sources you can add if you wish, addressing the topic as a set: https://www.cbr.com/dc-flashpoint-heroes-ranked/ ; https://comicvine.gamespot.com/flashpoint-universe/4015-56524/characters/ ; https://www.ign.com/articles/2017/08/30/flashpoint-all-the-major-heroes-and-villains-in-the-epic-dc-flash-story https://comicsalliance.com/flashpoint-dc-comics/ and so on and they are also covered "in this specific arc" in The DC Comics Universe: Critical Essays. (2022). McFarland Publishing, pp. 118, 120 for example). -Mushy Yank. 00:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I almost forgot. You now have sources you can add but your reference to WP:OR was absolutely not relevant anyway because regarding content of fiction, the fiction itself is the source (a guideline); see the essay Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary for further information: "For especially large or complex fictional works, certain elements may be split off into additional articles per WP:SS. Such related articles should be clearly cross-linked so that readers can understand the full context and impact of the work. Such an article may have what amounts to a different kind of plot summary. For instance, an article on Hamlet the character as opposed to Hamlet the play would just summarize Prince Hamlet's individual plot arc through the play. You might begin the section with something like, "The play charts Hamlet's tragic downfall as he pursues revenge against his uncle Claudius", and then summarize the events that contribute to that tragic downfall, using all the same guidelines you would in general." That is precisely the case of this list, from a split of the main page. -Mushy Yank. 00:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of these bar the Valnet source (Which doesn't contribute to notability) are all either just character listings or plot summaries. While verifiable, being verifiable does not make a subject notable. Additionally, the article still fails Wikipedia:PLOT, as this would be all plot summary without any form of notability tied to it. Per MOS:CHARACTERS: "do not include every peripheral character, or every detail about a major character; this is not an indiscriminate collection of information." This list clearly fails this criteria, and if the main Flashpoint article needs a small section, so be it. But a whole list is not necessary for a subject of Flashpoint's size and the relative non-notability of this particular subset of characters. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This list serves no recognized navigational purpose, and it is OR. While the source material can serve as a source for basic plot summaries, as noted above, that doesn't extend to vast swaths of detailed, opinionated material about dozens and dozens of characters, which is what this list is. I spot checked two of those sources; one was WP:UGC, and another had no information about the topic. If you actually want to present sources, please stick to usable ones. Regardless, it's hard to see how such an overly detailed, crufty list such as this is needed. If you want to include a main character list in the main article, then do so, but this isn't needed (or notable). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the above keep !votes, it does not meet WP:NLIST. Orientls (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the claims made by @Mushy Yank An editor from Mars (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What claims? How do you get around the fact that there isn't a single source in this list, and it's complete OR? Or that there's no sourcing to demonstrate this as some kind of notable grouping? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Little Bit of Love (Kesha song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: See the critical reception section and references in the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception section is all album reviews, which NSONG specifies don't establish notability. There's not one source that is about this song. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion so far contains assertions about sourcing and notability, but actual analysis of sourcing beyond the nominator would be helpful. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am the nominator, but I hope this is helpful: Four of the six citations are album reviews for High Road, which NSONG specifies can't be used to establish a song's notability. One is the single on Spotify, which is the source cited for its release date. One is a now-deleted article on Idolator that was presumably like "hey, a new performance on Ellen is viewable on YouTube". There's a similar article, unused here, from Billboard. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to High Road (Kesha album) per nom. मल्ल (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support redirecting to High Road (Kesha album) ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Cooper (podcaster)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This article was deleted after a discussion in September and there are no new sources. Old version. Previous discussion. New version includes false promotional language like "Cooper is a writer for The American Conservative and has contributed to Tablet Magazine" (1 article at AC, 0 at Tablet), unsourced sections, and no mention of past statements like "FDR chose the wrong side in WW2" and Hitler not being in hell. This is still a WP:BLP1E, the only difference is that the new version pretends otherwise and uses promotional framing for his views. Tagging from previous discussion: Isaidnoway Xegma Wcquidditch Chaimanmeow Liz ArmenianSniper Googleguy007 AusLondonder Gusbenz Cosmokiwi LizardJr8 Lostsandwich The_Four_Deuces Osomite Wyattroberts A._Randomdude0000 FeldBum Seefooddiet John_Z Kriddl Donald_Albury Andol HonestManBad Kimdime Hemiauchenia Sandstein. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete I have this article watchlisted because I do generally think it's wise to keep an eye on the pages of holocaust deniers so that we can avoid Wikipedia hosting, you know, holocaust denial, but this guy's definitely a good example of WP:BLP1E. While I do think it's good for Wikipedia to cover notable pseudohistorians, including notable holocaust deniers, I don't think we need to have a page for every holocaust denier with a Podcastle subscription. Should evidence be presented this man is a more significant holocaust denier then I guess I'll go back to keeping him on my watchlist but otherwise I think deletion is the best course of action. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also tagging @Hemiauchenia @Tsarstvovanie @Ekozie @Sweetstache @Kungigult from old page. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223 While Cooper gained noterietay from the Carlson interview, the number of sources since the last article was deleted in September have increased. Aside from receiving 10s of millions of views on popular shows & podcats like Carslon and Rogan, Cooper hosts 2 popular podcasts of his own and has a substack with over 160k subscribers. I think that this page is clearly unfinished and some of the sourcing should be fixed. It also entirely focuses on his recent comments with Carlson and Rogan. This is a better argument to expand the page than to delete it. Cooper's popularity is clearly growing, he does now fit the criteria for a notable person. I think it is important for wikipedia to cover this person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Showing up as a guest in the walled garden of right-wing podcasts isn't an automatic indication of notability nor is having a blog. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but his popularity is. Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. Many of Cooper's associated personalities are equally as notable and have wiki pages. Comic Dave Smith for example. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparison to Dave Smith (comedian) is actually a good one for demonstrating why Cooper is not notable. Smith has many reliable sources talking about a variety of actual event appearances such as festivals and such. His advocacy for Trump made it into Reason for goodness sake. The SPLC has a profile on Smith and has documented his conflict with the holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. Dave Smith is clearly notable by Wikipedia's standards because reliable sources treat him as such. Showing up on Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan while being a far-right podcaster is not intrinsically notable. Having a blog is not intrinsically notable. In fact the contrast between Cooper and Smith reinforces why we should not have a page about Cooper. Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point of order, the previous version was not deleted – The result was redirect‎ to Tucker Carlson#Darryl Cooper World War II controversy. I'll look at the newly created version and sources a little later and get back. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete/Merge My opinion hasn't really changed here, eventhough the article has grown. Nearly all of the citations fall into two groups: first-party/non-notable, like the subject's substack or podcast homepage, or specifically about a single opinion/appearance--and all from September 2024. There are now two citations about a second podcast appearance, this time on Joe Rogan, but it's still basically the same problem; the subject is only notable when he makes a fuss or controversial statement on someone else's program. Basically, when you get down to it, this is person is known for two slightly viral moments. I know that BLP2E isn't a "real" policy around here, but this feels more like an extension of BLP1E. I'm assuming the subject will continue to make enough noise to eventually meet notabilty guidelines; I just don't think here's there yet based on the current article. --FeldBum (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neill Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[[[Neil Ferguson]] more an “anti-historian”[17] and he came back on Rogan. Cooper has two popular podcasts. All in all: he is now much more as “just another holocaust denier and podcaster”.—Kriddl (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neil Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[18] and he came back on Rogan. Cooper has two popular podcasts. All in all: he is now much more as “just another holocaust denier and podcaster”.—Kriddl (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Times of Israel is a good source, [19], this is an opinion piece [20], [21], [22]. The person certainly is opinionated, but we shold have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are all about the same one event. Please see WP:BLP1E. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The current version of the article is much more detailed and has a number of reliable sources. Eric Carpenter (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of which seem to be about his Tucker Carlson interview. Except for one source that mentioned a pro-Hitler tweet of his. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's just your opinion. There's also a number of other quotes and information now in the article, his Joe Rogan appearance, the many, many articles criticizing his point of view. Eric Carpenter (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
certainly a noteworthy topic..keep 173.91.127.46 (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since I was pinged as a "participant" in the last nomination, I wanted to clarify that my only contribution to that was deletion sorting. Other than this comment, that is also the case for this nomination; I had no opinion on the old article and also offer no opinion for this version. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. The previous article only focused on the Tucker Interview, which is why it was considered WP:BLP1E. Cooper’s work has been widely discussed in major outlets including The Times (UK), Vox, Axios, Yad Vashem, and The Free Press, which reflects the notability standards set by Wikipedia for public figures. Additionally, many of the personalities he associates with such as comic Dave Smith have wikipedia pages despite equal noterietay at best. These factors—his independent contributions to historical analysis, his partnerships with notable figures, and his coverage by reliable secondary sources—clearly demonstrate that Cooper meets the criteria a notable person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore there are already Darryl Cooper articles in German and French [23] Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete here's very little reliable sourcing for Cooper except that he is a podcaster who made several controversial appearances on right-wing talk shows promoting holocaust denial. These controversies are best covered in articles about the hosts.

TFD (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A certain level of prudence is required to productively apply notability guidelines. Cooper is a writer and podcaster with a large audience who has been involved in several controversies. This is enough for him to be notable, and the point of notability guidelines is fundamentally to filter out what's not notable. Not to provide material for (admittedly) politically-motivated quibbling over alleged edge cases as if the norms themselves were the point. Note also the almost inevitable meta-level political bias that sneaks in when editors are free to apply different levels of scrutiny to different topics based on their own biases. A serious effort to remain unbiased would involve opening discussions on politics-related articles with an encouragement for users to check their biases at the door - instead we have editors more or less stating that they are here to enforce their political preferences. Anyway, it's three events now and it was two events last time when WP:BLP1E was applied. HonestManBad (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The three "events" are two podcast appearances and a bad tweet. We do retain articles on notable nazi podcasters like Christopher Cantwell this guy just isn't as significant as him. Simonm223 (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bad in any way that's relevant to this discussion. It's not a single tweet but a thread of 35 tweets - an article of sorts, you could say - not that it matters. The reactions from significant figures and publications are what makes the events notable. HonestManBad (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that happens on Twitter matters at all no many how many tweets were in a thread. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on Twitter is not relevant to this discussion. HonestManBad (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: BLP1E doeesn't apply because there are at least 4 events that have received coverage in secondary sources: 1) The 1/6 tweets, 2) the Hitler tweet, 3) The Tucker Carlson appearance, and 4) The Joe Rogan appearance. While it is true that none of these in themselves would make someone notable, the fact that these events have been covered in secondary source does. Additionally, Cooper has tens of thousands of paid subscribers on Substack, making him one of the highest earners on the site.[24] Mr. Squidroot (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a podcaster interacting with other podcasters and making some noise for bigoted tweets is not proof of notoriety. The article also seems like a puff piece. A lot of sources are subpar, unreliable, and some were also pulled from ChatGPT. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

K-dron

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

Fails to meet WP:CRITERIA per lack of supported sources in Google Books and Scholars; only one or two. Some possible plagiarism detected in [25], which translates from Polish to English. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:21, 19 March 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 March 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Mathematically this is not of significance but the question is whether we can find enough coverage of this as a design element to make up for that. Skipping all Kapusta-authored sources as non-independent, the Górska source is independent but does not provide in-depth coverage, and neither does Moskal, "Virtual and Real: K-dron and light", in SIGGRAPH 2004, despite its title. Other sources I looked at, that mention K-drons but without in-depth coverage of the shape itself, are Żarinow's "Recepcja scenografii w Polsce wczoraj i dziś", Możdżyński's "Naukowe Fascynacje Sztuki. Przegląd Arbitralny", Orzechowski's "Teaching Drawing, Painting and Sculpture at the Faculty of Architecture of the Warsaw University of Technology, classics and modernity", Smith's "From here to infinity" [26], and Kraus's All the Art That's Fit to Print [27]. [28] and [29] have some depth but I am skeptical of their independence and reliability. The Kapproff book is independent, reliably published, and with in-depth coverage, but it is only one source; we need multiple such sources. [30] is paywalled so I could not check its depth. So for now to me this is borderline, but with one more source as good as the Kapproff book I could be pushed to a weak keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Lubański source might not be that elusive additional source for David Eppstein. It talks about things already written at https://msl.org.pl/k-dron-janusz-kapusta such as the co-authored paper with Stanisław Kwapień; and adds a couple of tidbits like a puzzle piece, a 3D map of the planet, and the use as the logo in a 2018 fair. It also quotes the inventor. Uncle G (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unsure about sourcing, but commenting that I would be very surprised if a design element popular enough to have a monument constructed of it was non-notable. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hershii LiqCour-Jeté

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

Non notable person other than being a contestant on a show Alexthegod5 (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This person competed on a little known drag show for one season to be the "drag queen". Not notable at all. DotesConks (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DotesConks, I'm editing your reply to say "delete". ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanahary I'm not sure why I said oppose there, but thank you for correcting my mistake DotesConks (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How, @DotesConks, is RuPaul's Drag Race a "little known drag show"? I'm not a fan of the (reality show) genre, and have never watched - but I'm well aware of it's existence, that it's shown around the world, and that it spawned an entire franchise. Surely this is very well known (and loved) show. Nfitz (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz Interesting, I have personally never heard of it until right now which is why I thought it was not notable. DotesConks (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has 24 Emmys - and dozens more nominations. It's a massive high-quality well-respected and well-received show for many years. But I guess if one doesn't know. Nfitz (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DotesConks, participants in AFD discussions shouldn't base their arguments on what they know but on their evaluation of sources in the article and ones they find when they do a search. Pleases do your due diligence if you want to fully participate in deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have found some sources covering this person. Yahoo Pride (not sure if that's reliable), Gay Times (not sure of this one either, seems like a lot of "Madonna Stuns in New Selfie" crap), and an interview with Billboard.

I'll also note that "not notable apart from being a contestant on a show" and "the show they competed on is little-known" (which is really not true, it's a famous show) are not policy-based arguments; deletion arguments should derive from the notability guidelines. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This coverage does not seem significant enough to me for this person to meet the GNG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanahary Thank you for the feedback! So just in the future, notability guidelines generally include coverage even if it's (for example) someone who starred in one show or movie? Let me know if I should ask this on your talk page too Alexthegod5 (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone whose entire career (and notability) comes from a TV show appearance can still be notable and meet GNG. It's just unlikely that they would. But take Dorinda Medley for example: she was not a public figure before being cast on the Real Housewives of New York, and now she is an independently notable person. In my opinion, coverage of a person that is about nothing but their time on a reality show (like how Survivor contestants often get a bunch of Entertainment Weekly articles about them and interviews after they're voted off) does not demonstrate notability, but I don't know what the community's consensus on that sort of thing is. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Sexuality and gender, California, Georgia (U.S. state), and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:HEY. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nominator that coverage is about appearance on one show which to me fails WP:ENTERTAINER and falls under WP:BLP1E. Most references are about the appearance on the show and many are interviews. If the subject goes on to have additional roles and/or significant contributions as an entertainer I'd be open to revisiting. Nnev66 (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep This strikes me as a better candidate for deletion than some of the other AfD noms of drag artists recently, but I think the Yahoo Times article linked above by Zanahary (because it is a profile on their life and background, and not coverage about their season on Drag Race) together with the performer being in an OUTTv documentary as well as two cable-broadcasted television shows, RuPaul's Drag Race and Untucked!, is enough to clear the threshold set by WP:ENTERTAINER. Also, calling Ru Paul's Drag Race a "a little known drag show", as some editors have, is like calling American Idol a "local singing contest". That's simply inaccurate and should probably not be assigned a lot of weight in the consensus decision. Flip^and Flopped ツ 16:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Fails general notability. 190.219.103.81 (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not that notable besides being a contestant on RuPaul's Drag Race. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deblocking of Dulje

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

Poorly sourced and dubious article written by a blocked editor with a history of copyvios, dubious/poorly sourced articles, and some form of SOCK/MEAT editing. Sources don't seem to describe this as a thing. While some military actions did appear to take place in this area during this time, I haven't been able to find reliable sources that talk about it in Serbian or English, let alone sources that allow this to pass WP:NEVENT. Analysis of current sources is below:

[31] - picture of the Martyrs' and Martyrs' Memorial in Duhël confirming two soldiers died in 1998. That's it.
[32] used to support a definitive death/casualty toll in the deblockade in the villiage, actually says Ethnic Albanian sources claimed that eight Albanian civilians have been killed and about 40 wounded in two days of fighting across the province. Makes no mention of the deblockadement or ties these deaths to it or the leadup to it.
[33] 2008 news article from Glas javnosti titled "Crimes of Albanian terrorists 1995-1998: Mortar and bomb attacks". Verifies the attack near Duhël on the 23rd, and parts of the other list of events, but makes no attempt to connect them to each other like out article does. Makes no mention of the deblockadement.
[34] confirms injuries of Milutinov, Milutinov, and Nenad near Duhël on the dates and times in question, presented as a list of injuries during the time and makes no attempt to connect them to any larger event apart from the war itself.
[35] and [36] are substantially superficially modified versions of each other with no clear authorship; suspect they were both copied from the same source. First is a blog/forum thing, second is hosted by Tripod (web hosting) which is UGC. Tripod version does not appear seems to fully verify the content: makes no mention of events on "27 August 1998", only discussed a 1999 action by the KLA. Also discussed events in the apring of 1998, but generally, making no reference to this village or blockade or deblockade. Mostly appears to be about tanks. Blog version actually does make reference to a blockadement/military actions in Duhël in July and August. Doesn't mention the KLA by name, doesn't treat the actions in Duhël that summer/fall as connected.
[37] Kosovo Diplomatic Observer Mission report from the time; makes no mention of the event and can't be used to prove NEVENT notability even if it did.

Haven't been able to find any other sources discussing this outside of a few mirrors of the Serbian Wikipedia's version of the article (of which this is a translation). If somebody more knowledgeable in this topic area finds a book discussing this in detail, please ping me, but considering the poor state/SYNTH concerns, lack of reliable sources in the article, the fact I can't find any other sources, the contentiousness of the topic area, and the previously documented issues with the writer/translator, AfD it is. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 05:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 05:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Obvious hoax article. I suggest taking this article to Wikipedia's list of hoaxes. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks like it was just cobbled together from random sources, and randomly given a title. I've come across many of this editor's articles in NPP, and all share similar issues. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 06:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor non-notable incident of in fact it happened in this way at all. Lots of this stuff popping up at present. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is a machine translation from sr-wiki: [38]. If this is determined to be a hoax here, it should be flagged there as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amarfis

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this previously unfootnoted article about a musician, and added one reference, though it is a passing mention. I cannot see significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and therefore don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, and nor can I find evidence that he meets WP:NMUSICIAN. No obvious redirect target. Tagged with notability concerns since 2018. Tacyarg (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Caribbean, and Dominican Republic. Tacyarg (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vocalist for a non-notable band. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nu deathcore

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

Theres already an article for nu metalcore (which if you know about this kind of music metalcore and deathcore are very related to one another). An article like this existing seems unnecessary, if not silly. The only sources that mention a "nu deathcore" are MetalSucks posts making offhand tongue-in-cheek comments. Not only is MetalSucks arguably not a reliable source when it comes to music jounralism as it's a blog website. But I dont even think they're serious about it, im familair with the website being very sardonic when it comes to their commentary, the site very commonly comes up with quips to describe a band really fast, which obviously arent real genres, such as "breakdowncore" [39] or "death crunkcore" [40] A wikipedia article doesnt need to be made for every "genre" they coin. Lil Sad Lil Happy (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about 95% unsourced WP:OR - it's largely a personal essay. I was going to trim it up but realized there's be little left if I kept going. If an article is plausible, it wouldn't be the current firm if the article. Also not a good sign if half of the "notable artists" section aren't notable enough to have their own article either. Sergecross73 msg me 10:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Kangra

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

Sources fail to provide significant coverage to this topic. This topic is already covered at Kanhaiya Misl, therefore a standalone article is not needed. Koshuri ^(グ) 03:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Koshuri ^(グ) 03:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not need a separate article, also not enough coverage. Agletarang (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Y'all think the closer will follow on this obvious canvassing? No, lol. I have to say, at least this nomination is not calling my creation as "hoax" like some others: [41][42][43][44]. "This topic is already covered at Kanhaiya Misl, therefore a standalone article is not needed.": Hilarious, guess who added that "already" content? [45]. Koshuri, do a better WP:BEFORE. For the coverage it's easily getting enough writings of the crux only pointing how the siege went: [46][47] (4 pages) [48] (3 pages). Heraklios 17:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Willoughby Condominium

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

Lacks notability and appears like self-promotion MrTaxes (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete a run-of-the-mill high-rise. There's no actual claim to notability given and the coverage is local. Mangoe (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just your average random skyscraper in the outskirts of the District of Colombia. The coverage is all local and I am questioning the notability. An editor from Mars (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Khamis Rashid Al-Neyadi

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

Declined prod. His international medal is from a low tier competition and not a top level competition as outlined in WP:NATH. The only third party non database source is a 1 line mention. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 3 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 United Arab Emirates. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, despite not knowing the language at all I found a few sources on the subject and improved the article just before it was nominated. I'm not sure what is "low tier" about the Gulf Cooperation Council Athletics Championships as they are a major international competition in the middle east and are reported on by Athletics Weekly, so that would fulfill WP:NATH prong 1. I think the WP:NEXIST case here is strong because of the international medals and even recent coverage found about coaching. --Habst (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recycling the NEXIST argument again... LibStar (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

English Constitution Party

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

Wikipedia is not a repository of every single political party. No established notability. No established independent coverage beyond describing the party as existing, such as election victories or notable results. No notable personalities or figures involved. No notable or established third party coverage. Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of every political party registered to fight elections. doktorb _words^deeds 01:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. doktorb _words^deeds 01:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Shellwood (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable British political party. Doubt they have ever won a seat in the House of Parliament. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Independent sourcing is very poor on this one. The sources already in the article are fairly short on information, with there seeming to be little information to be had outwith listings on ballot forms and one person. They're also the same sources that I turned up when I looked, so this seems to have the most sourcing that it can get at the moment, which is borderline. The non-independent sourcing is rubbish, and if unreliable Twitter posts are the only way that anything of significance is purportedly known (It's Twitter. It could be a total fabrication.) about this organization, which appears to be the case, then this is currently on the delete side of the borderline. Uncle G (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable party. Has no elected representation at any level and as far as I'm aware has never had any elected representation what-so-ever. There is also insufficient reliable third-party coverage of the party to give them notability or write up any sort of decent Wikipedia page on them. Very few third-party sources talk about it in any sort of depth. In most cases they only get a passing mention. Helper201 (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bidhannagar Government High School

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

Not notable as per WP:GNG. The only source I could find are vague mention, and the only other one is about a principal from this school facing legal issues. This would still come under WP:ONEEVENT making this subject non notable. www.skoolz.in and schools.org.in are not reliable as they list every school in the country. It does not mean every school in the country is notable. The following is from their website : ″We are an independent platform providing a space for users to submit and access school listing data. ″ Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable school, as you have pointed out. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, hardly any source available. Drat8sub (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mika'ela Fisher

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

Does not meet notability standards per WP:GNG, and reads heavily of WP:PROMO (and likely COI editing). The article relies heavily on primary sources (the subject's own websites, IMDB entries, and self-produced promotional materials) rather than coverage from independent reliable sources per WP:GNG. Most references are to listings on festival websites, agency portfolios, and film databases, which do not constitute substantive coverage; others are of little significant coverage that fail to meet even WP:100W, therefore failing WP:SIGCOV.

It is also relevant to mention the other recent AfD's related to the subject, such as WP:Articles for deletion/Victory's Short and WP:Articles for deletion/Männin. Madeleine (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TNT this promotion. Main contributors to this and her film pages are Chryopras and Chryopras1, matching up with her production company Chryopras Films. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Andraka

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

Does not meet notability standards per WP:BLP and WP:GNG. The subject is only notable for a single event - his 2012 science fair project claiming a novel pancreatic cancer detection method. This work was never peer-reviewed, published in scientific journals, or developed into actual clinical use. Leading experts including Ira Pastan (discoverer of mesothelin) stated his method "makes no scientific sense" and his patent application was rejected for "lack of inventive step". Brief media attention without sustained coverage per WP:SUSTAINED or lasting significant does not establish notability. Madeleine (talk) 00:17, 3 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia's inclusion criteria is that the subject of the article has to be the subject of media as described in WP:GNG. This person meets that criteria. They were profiled for being gay in Metro Weekly, Francis Collins profiled them for their views on on open access, and the The Colbert Report presented their general life as interesting. Media reported their being the guest of president Obama. All of this is in addition to specific coverage they got about the science. What anyone thinks of the science is not a consideration for Wikipedia, and in fact, if there is criticism of their science then that is just more media to cite and more reason for them to have an article. Wikipedia does not judge whether someone's work is correct or valid; we just keep articles when people get media coverage.

About sustainable media coverage - they got attention for long enough to meet Wikipedia's definition of "sustained", and being in the media for a lifetime thereafter is not required. When a young person gets media attention and they are gay, then they always get death threats based on politics and religion. This person undoubtedly experienced that. Whether that was a convincing reason for them to avoid media attention would be speculation, but it definitely happened because it always happens, and it is never surprising when a young gay person disappears from media because the threats so often lead to that. Bluerasberry (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Maryland. Shellwood (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Under "Awards and recognition" , I added his being seated in First Lady Michelle Obama's box at the 2013 State of the Union Address. — Maile (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AMP (streamer collective)

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

most of the notable stuff are about a member of the group, not the group itself. the only significant coverage about the group are from the tubefilter article, the rest are mainly about kai cenat. Http iosue (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Entertainment, Internet, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Tedford

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

Fails WP:NBIO & WP:SPORTBASIC ~Liance^talk 00:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Liance^talk 00:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references with significant coverage; subject is not notable. Madeleine (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable archer and probably just a big fat billboard. Not a hater, Mr. Tedford, you seem pretty cool! An editor from Mars (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]