Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 18	April 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Honeymoon Fades

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

Fails WP:NSONG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please provide a direct link to a target article if you are proposing a Redirection or Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Middle of Starting Over

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

Fails WP:NSONG; not enough WP:SIGCOV. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - strong reviews, and millions of views of the video. Bearian (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Video views definitely do not pertain to any notability policy. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is good. I just saw the other one is now a dead link. This one has two paragraphs and a quote, but that's all I can find. So I agree that it's pretty weak as far as significant coverage. It's confusing because the song is basically a Gold Record. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With no sources about this song, NSONG is not met. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected to its album. Video views are not a source for notability. Headline planet is not reliable source and ScreenRant doesn't strike me as reliable either. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable at all. Maxwell Smart ¹²³³²¹ 12:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are ever suggesting a Redirection or Merge, please provide a direct link to the target article you are proposing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Shaftel

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I can find is brief mentions of him in real estate notices as the architect of a house or housing estate, and brief quotes from him about the features of his designs. None of this amounts to the significant coverage needed for WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE notability. And his academic position does not have any evidence of WP:PROF notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than a trivial amount of mentions in older architectural magazines [1], book mentions [2]. Clicking on the Gbooks link above brings up many mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your first link appears from its thumbnail to be a business directory and does not allow me to see more than the thumbnail. Your second is exactly the sort of thing I meant by "brief mentions of him in real estate notices as the architect of a house or housing estate"; I do not think it constitutes in-depth coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that if you just click on "Find Sources" on this nomination template, several options are there to find the sources. — Maile (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybach Music 2

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 14:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please provide a direct link to the Redirect target article you are proposing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Mack (restaurateur)

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

I cannot find significant coverage on the person, but only on his family, and projects (resorts, hotels, etc) he is involved. Not sufficient media coverage for general notability for people. Unicorbia (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. "Restaurantguide 2025: Thomas Mack ist internationaler Botschafter" [Restaurant Guide 2025: Thomas Mack is an international ambassador]. Falstaff [zh] (in German). 2024-12-02. Archived from the original on 2025-04-13. Retrieved 2025-04-13.
  The article notes: "Thomas Mack kennt das Food-&-Beverage-Geschäft seit Kindheitstagen. Für sein Taschengeld engagierte sich der jüngste Sohn des Europa-Park-Chefs früh im Familienbetrieb: Er frittierte Pommes, schenkte Getränke aus, half bei Banketts und arbeitete sogar als Nachtportier. Nach seiner Ausbildung an der renommierten Schweizer Hotelfachschule in Luzern, die Mack als Jahrgangsbester abschloss, übernahm er eine zentrale Rolle im Familienunternehmen. Heute verantwortet er das gesamte operative Geschäft des Europa-Parks, einschließlich der 90 Gastronomiebetriebe, 5.800 Hotelbetten und 4.750 Mitarbeiter, die jährlich mehr als sechs Millionen Gäste aus aller Welt betreuen. 2012 eröffnete Mack das Fine-Dining-Restaurant »Ammolite«, das seit zehn Jahren zwei Michelin-Sterne trägt. 2022 folgte das immersive Dinner-Erlebnis »Eatrenalin«."
  From Google Translate: "Thomas Mack has been familiar with the food and beverage business since childhood. The youngest son of the Europa-Park CEO got involved in the family business early on to earn his pocket money: he fried fries, served drinks, helped at banquets, and even worked as a night porter. After completing his training at the renowned Swiss Hotel Management School in Lucerne, where Mack graduated top of his class, he assumed a key role in the family business. Today, he is responsible for all of Europa-Park's operations, including its 90 restaurants, 5,800 hotel beds, and 4,750 employees, who serve more than six million guests from all over the world annually. In 2012, Mack opened the fine-dining restaurant "Ammolite," which has held two Michelin stars for ten years. The immersive dining experience "Eatrenalin" followed in 2022."
2. Hofer, Joachim; Buchenau, Martin-W. (2020-01-07). "Wie der Familienunternehmer den Europapark auch im Winter attraktiv halten möchte: Der Diplom-Hotelier und Juniorchef des Europaparks hat gerade erst sein neustes Hotel eröffnet – mit Erfolg. Ein weiteres dürfte schon bald folgen" [How the family entrepreneur wants to keep Europapark attractive in winter: The qualified hotelier and junior manager of Europa-Park has just opened his newest hotel – with great success. Another is expected to follow soon.]. Handelsblatt (in German). Archived from the original on 2025-04-13. Retrieved 2025-04-13.
  The article notes: "Sohn Thomas ist für Kost und Logis zuständig, ... Und nicht nur das: Mit dem „Ammolite“ betreibt Thomas Mack in einem der Hotels sogar ein mit zwei Sternen gekröntes Nobelrestaurant. Längst hat Mack bei seinen Ausbauplänen nicht mehr nur Disneyland im Blick oder das Phantasialand. „Unser Mitbewerber ist eher Mallorca denn ein anderer Freizeitpark“, sagt der Absolvent der Schweizer Hotelfachschule in Luzern. 2007 stieg Mack als Prokurist in die Firma ein. Seit 2016 ist der verheiratete Vater von zwei kleinen Kindern als geschäftsführender Gesellschafter für Hotels, Gastronomie sowie das Marketing zuständig. Um die Leute rund ums Jahr in die badische Provinz zu holen, organisieren Macks Mitarbeiter fast jeden Tag eine Veranstaltung – ob die Achterbahnen nun laufen oder nicht. Momentan lädt er die Gäste Abend für Abend zu einer opulenten Dinnershow."
  From Google Translate: "Son Thomas is responsible for food and lodging... And that's not all: With the "Ammolite," Thomas Mack even runs a two-star gourmet restaurant in one of the hotels. Mack's expansion plans have long since moved beyond Disneyland and Phantasialand. "Our competition is more likely to be Mallorca than any other theme park," says the graduate of the Swiss Hotel Management School in Lucerne. Mack joined the company as an authorized signatory in 2007. Since 2016, the married father of two young children has been the managing partner responsible for hotels, gastronomy, and marketing. To attract visitors to the Baden province year-round, Mack's employees organize an event almost every day – whether the roller coasters are running or not. He currently invites guests to an opulent dinner show every evening."
3. Ralph, Owen (2024-04-16). "Thomas Mack: why hospitality matters at Europa-Park Resort. The resort's managing partner knows how to wine, dine and accommodate its six million guests with style". Blooloop. Archived from the original on 2025-04-13. Retrieved 2025-04-13.
  Blooloop has editorial oversight. The article notes: "The middle child and younger son of Europa-Park founder Roland Mack, Thomas Mack worked as a teenager in the park’s hotels, cafés, and restaurants. He also interned at other theme parks, hotels, and hospitality businesses. After the success of Europa-Parks’ first two hotels, he was encouraged to study for a degree at the renowned Swiss Hotel Management School in Lucerne. ... Now aged 43, Thomas has been responsible for all the gastronomy, hospitality and entertainment operations at Europa-Park Resort since 2007. In 2016, he was made a managing partner." The article says that he is married to Katja Mack, "the founder and head of Europa-Park's Talent Academy".
4. Neubauer, Dirk (2021-07-10). "Europa-Park-Chefs Michael und Thomas Mack: Mit dem Skateboard in der Bobbahn" [Europa-Park bosses Michael and Thomas Mack: Skateboarding on the bobsleigh track]. Badische Neueste Nachrichten (in German). Archived from the original on 2021-08-05. Retrieved 2025-04-13.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "They're mischievous stories, as if Michael and Thomas Mack had watched too many Michel from Lönneberga movies: The two brothers throw chestnuts from Balthasar Castle into the historic garden of Europa-Park. ... Also unforgettable is a competition between the Mack brothers: who could complete the most laps on the then-brand-new Eurosat roller coaster. After lap 34, Michael, the older of the two, gave up. "Thomas won, but he also had a nosebleed.""
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Thomas Mack to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Hall

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

While her works are somewhat notable, her herself isn't exactly, failing WP:GNG. It's a stub, I get it, but there's so little information on here and almost nothing on Google. We don't even know if she's alive or not. KrystalInfernus (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Theatre, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: She doesn't have any works of her own. She is an actress who has appeared in some notable stage works, but the article does not say what roles she played. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well... if there are reviews of her performances in these works then that would count towards notability per the first criteria. Of course that would require sourcing - I'll see what I can find. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding coverage of her stage performances. Her movie/film roles are pretty much minor and background characters. Offhand, given some of the reviews of her stage performances thus far, she might prefer the article get deleted rather than have a summary of what they've been saying. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards a keep here so far - she's been in some notable performances and has gotten mention to varying degrees. She doesn't seem to have met with any overwhelming success, but there's enough so far that she could probably pass criteria 1 of NACTOR. I will try to keep digging, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:RSs have you found? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found multiple reviews of plays she's been in. The ones I'm using to count towards notability are the ones that specifically mention her within the body of the review. For example, Reuters, The Spectator, and The Guardian all call her out by name in reviews for Present Laughter and Hall received additional attention from The Guardian for We That Are Left. Her performances were also reviewed by the British Theater Guide, which looks usable - I've seen where it's been used as a RS in academic/scholarly texts published by De Gruyter, Palgrave Macmillan, Taylor & Francis, and so on. There was also a review by the Oldham Evening Chronicle, but that's not as high profile as the others. There was a paywalled review for The Doctor's Dilemma by The Stage. I can't tell if she was mentioned in that or not, so I'm not entirely counting that one.

Reviews for an actor's work can count towards notability for them and have traditionally qualified under criteria 1 of NACTOR. So on that note, I'm arguing for a keep. She's not some overwhelmingly notable stage actor, but she's also not some random who acts in the chorus or only has a single line role. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Slavonia front

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

This article it was created by a newbie last year, and its topic seems to be completely overlapping with other articles about the Croatian War of Independence, noticably the two linked from Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia. A Google Books search for the phrase "Eastern Slavonia front" only gives a handful of results, so this isn't a particularly likely search term, and it seems unreasonable to maintain three articles about basically the same thing. --Joy (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Croatia. Joy (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Witches of Breastwick

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find sources that Project Horror uses [3], so that's of no help. This is the only sort of review in a source I could find [4], I'm not sure if that's a RS or not. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.Nickm57 (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Shows no notability. CabinetCavers (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bordering speedy given the lack of BEFOREs in various nominations by the same nominator and their barely acceptable rationale. In this case the BEFORE was just reading the page....The film meets Wp:NFILM as the subject of a notable documentary (see NFO section and reception in the article); a redirect to the director should have been considered anyway so that deletion should have been completely off the table. -Mushy Yank. 21:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Any chance of a source analysis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Planner (program)

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

↔===Bone Street Krew===

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

A bunch of guys hanging out backstage rumored to have heat with The Kliq and believed to have been created as a counter to them, but the myth has been busted. They do not have any incidents like the "Curtain Call" by the Kliq. They only teamed once onscreen in a Survivor Series match in 1995, apparently called "The Darkside", unlike The Kliq who had The Outsiders going to WCW, nWo and DX. Just because of the rumors, this could be merged to The Kliq article or The Undertaker#Personal life because of his visible tattoo (or "locker room leadership"). BinaryBrainBug (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Wrestling. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article already includes sufficient third-party sources explicitly about the group (that is, not passing mentions or routine coverage) to fulfill notability requirements. The nom seems to think the relative lack of on-screen use of the group is meaningful, but that is not defining at all. oknazevad (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Oknazevad said, the article has in-deep sources about the subject. Even if it's a backstage group, has coverage around it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This reads as the nominator not liking this group rather than citing any policy-based reasons for deletion, and we cite facts, not wrestling gossip. Nathannah • 📮 01:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do It (¥$ song)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vultures 1. I'm not seeing any sources with substantial coverage either in the article or in basic google searches. If better sources are found please ping me. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please provide a direct link if suggesting a Redirection or Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah (Kanye West song)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

King (¥$ song)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kanga (song)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Is Lord

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apart from charting there are specific references enabling background and composition sections. In the continuing RfC a number of editors consider that album reviews that include content about a song do count towards WP:GNG of the song which would also be the case here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good (Don't Die)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Man Power Trip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge, this is a bit tabloidy, but also needs more sources, however for the subject matter, I could be convinced that it is a weak keep at best. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, has substantial notability and support by the World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and the fanbase, and the faction appears frequently in various articles. More citations and perhaps a bit of detail are needed however. WorldClassChampion (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. What this, or really any, article needs is independent, reliable sources not hype. The best I could find was the Sportster which, IMO, isn't enough. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Neither the Sportster nor fandom sources are reliable sources. Policy based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I don't even feel it's really a merge, but just take some of the details and put them in the respective wrestlers article. Not that it's badly written or anything, but this just feels like a storyline recap from 2001. Huge names involved yes but this isn't a team like Edge and Christian. It's really hard to define notable when they're in the biggest stage for wrestling but I'm going off of WP:NOPAGE because I feel this needs more context than it would provide.MatthewNewHouse (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Possible Merge but that can't happen without agreement on a Merge target article. Any ideas?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Worthy (record producer)

AfDs for this article:

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

The problem with this article is the same as when it was deleted the last time: almost all of the sources are not journalism but thinly veiled promotional material dressed up to look like "interviews," which are simply softball question templates filled in by the artist himself.

For example, this source is written by Lenell Johnson, whom Allmusic lists as Worthy's A&R rep. Another source, Singersoom, doesn't even mask its identity as a paid PR platform, as it has an "Advertise your music" banner on its site. Even an article in a source which might be thought of as reliable, The Source, reads like a PR blog post and claims, like the rest of Worthy's PR material, that he has been nominated for three Grammy awards, which I have not been able to corroborate with a WP:RS. This article in "Elevator" magazine is an article clearly tagged "promoted" and whose author is listed as "Advertiser."

I see no indication that Worthy has received any in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources that will satisfy WP:MUSICBIO, despite the "citation bombing" from Allmusic, Discogs, Spotify, iTunes, and IMDB. Rift (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Georgia (U.S. state), and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has already been to AFD so Soft deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex O'Connor

AfDs for this article:

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

While this isn't a G4, there's also no indication the factors have changed since the last AfD after which it was deleted. Star Mississippi 19:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and England. Star Mississippi 19:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The factors have changed since the last AfD. The article's subject is now covered in more reliable secondary sources that were not present in the previously deleted article, such as articles in The Atlantic, Varsity, and The Freethinker. The article from 2024 that was deleted did not contain these kinds of citations. Cyrobyte (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the sources listed by Cyrobyte and cited in the article I found Christian Post and a smattering of interviews. It looks like he clears the notability threshold to me. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change in North Rhine-Westphalia

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

New editor has created a number of pages called "Climate change in X region/country" and they are very similar. While the title seems a fitting topic for an article the content is mostly WP:OR and WP:CRYSTALBALL e.g. Ticks and mosquitoes and will become more commons(sic). Thought I would wait for consensus on whether this is a delete or improve before nominating the rest. Orange sticker (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Environment, and Germany. Orange sticker (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On it being original research, the vast majority of the writing I wrote is cited with WP:SECONDARY sources. So it is not original research.

As for it having a lot of "crystal ball" content, the vast majority of the content I wrote is about the relevant state/province/region/community's '''current''' government policy. Some of the content I wrote relates to the regional effects of climate change in a specific area, but it has citations to relevant sources. But you cannot meaningfully separate these things. The time horizon for the effects of climate change are very long. [5] Climate change in North Rhine-Westphalia is relatively unusual compared to Climate change in Bremen. I accept that this could be improved.

Current government policy on this topic relates to building sea defences, building more parks and other infrastructure, because of the effects of climate change in the future, the time at which such infrastructure would be completed. The time horizons on infrastructure are very long. There are other pages solely on future infrastructure. For example, Lower Thames Crossing. When writing content for Climate change in Schleswig-Holstein, there is more content about adaptation strategies. I accept that this could be improved.

Overall, I think deletion is just the wrong outcome. Landpin (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% apologise for writing a typo. Landpin (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These climate change articles are quite poor and should not be created with such rudimentary and nonspecific information just for the sake of it. Perhaps redirect to Climate change in Germany. Reywas92^Talk 23:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
which ones should be deleted? Landpin (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every "Climate change in" article you made for German states should be merged/redirected to the national article. Reywas92^Talk 13:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I believe User:Landpin's comment is an unbolded Keep. I'm not sure what "Delete ALL" refers to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL, WP:NOPAGE, etc. The article content is very pedestrian and there is nothing here to justify a separate page. The Legislation subsection can be selectively merged to Climate change in Germany. Astaire (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University Nord

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

Nomination for deletion:

I am nominating this article for deletion because it lacks notability and contains very little useful content. The university ceased to exist as an independent entity in 2010 after being merged into Tallinn University. The article provides minimal historical context, no significant coverage from reliable independent sources, and fails to establish why this defunct institution deserves a standalone entry. Additionally, the article lacks encyclopaedic value due to poor structure and insufficient context, making it difficult for readers to understand the subject or its relevance. Any notable information here could be better incorporated into the Tallinn University article.

ᴛʜᴇMᴀɴLK ^(Talk) 23:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I suggest searching "Akadeemia Nord" for sources. Universities rarely fail GNG. For example they wanted to merge into Tartu University etc. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has a number of reliable and independent sources sources. An entry at Eesti entsüklopeedia, articles in Postimees and Õhtuleht, etc. ExRat (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The article is just one sentence, with no sources or context. Even if the subject might meet notability, this version clearly doesn’t. Given the 2010 merger into Tallinn University, merging any sourced content there makes more sense than keeping this standalone stub. 37.139.112.182 (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Izno (talk) 20:35, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Estonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tallinn University. As a private university, the relevant notability guidelines are WP:NORG and so sources that meet WP:ORGDEPTH are required. We don't have these. The keep vote does point to a paragraph in Eesti Entsüklopeedia that discusses it, but that is interesting in that it notes it was formerly Tallinn Bachelor Private School, then it became University Nord, and then merged into Tallinn University. It really makes more sense to discuss it in the Tallinn University article, where the very limited information we have can sit within a larger and more useful context. Not suggesting merge as I don't think anything on the page is mergeable, although the Eesti Entsüklopeedia entry found here could be used on the merge target page, of the encyclopaedia (likely a tertiary source) is a suitable reliable source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to pass WP:SUBSTANTIAL. I think article should be expanded. There's enough material in Estonian Wikipedia, also adding a few sources found in quick search. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. 1991-1998 it was called "Bakalaureuse kool" which also has coverage [13]. There's even a book about its history [14]. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the book would clinch it - except no, because that is published by Eraakadeemia Nord, so that is clearly not independent. To meet NORG (and, indeed, GNG), we need significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Let's look at each of these:

1. [15] is a news article that confirms this was a "small private university" and speak about the plans to merge. There is no WP:ORGDEPTH coverage here. Note what is required for ORGDEPTH: Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. This is not a routine announcement but it provides nothing about the university other than it is small and private. We cannot even use the merge discussion because this is a primary source for that. N

2. [16] Even briefer article about the above. No for the same reasons. N

3. [17] News report about the refusal and court annulment of refusal of permit to teach psychology. Still no ORGDEPTH and this is very much a primary source. Sources must be secondary for notability purposes. N

4. [18] also news about the initial finding and refusal of permit to teach psychology. Primary source. There is a little information about the poor teaching of psychology, but if we stitched that into an article our article would be a secondary source and would look like an attack page. Wikipedia articles are tertiary. We need a secondary source that already looks, in a more balanced way, at whatever the issue was with teaching at the university. We don't have that, and it doesn't appear to exist, because this is really just day to day operations as regards small institutions. N

5. [19] More news regarding succesful accession/merger. This is primary sourcing, but the facts of this merger are why we should redirect to Tallinn university. Tallinn is the successor institution. N

6. [20] News report that student work was left outside, No ORGDEPTH. Note also that 2,3 and 6 all come from the same source and would be counted together for notability, but it is moot as I don't think any of these can be used. N

7. [21] News that it was running an unaccredited doctoral programme. we could use the information that it began the programme, without accreditation, in 2002/03 academic year. But that is not ORGDEPTH. N

8. [22] - This one presents an interesting conundrum. It has a little information. It is not really ORGDEPTH, but it is the first source that actually provides a touch of history, telling us that, apparently, the Bachelor's school is one of the oldest private educational institutions in Estonia. "One of" means not the oldest then. But it may hint of more information about the Bachelor's school. But if we searched and found information about the Bachelor's school, we run into an issue as to what is actually notable here. Because the Bachelor's school was an upper secondary and further education college, but not constituted as a university. We usually treat pages in the current name where a school closes and reopens with a new name/legal basis. But that is when the successor institution is of the same type. A school closes as Grange Hill High, and reopens as Grange Hill Academy. But the school is still a school doing all the same things. Only management and funding have changed. Here it seems that the school closed and a different institution, a private university, replaced it. That university then merged, and its successor institution is still a university. So if the Bachelor's school is notable (and that is a big if: all we have here is a presumption that more searching may be fruitful), then the page should be the Bachelor's school, and not University Nord. N

9. [23] As discussed above, not independent. N

So we do not have a pass of NORG here. We do have lots of expected coverage of a non notable private university. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should start what WP:ORGDEPTH is about. Basically any eligable sources helping the article to be expanded beyond permastub would pass it.

Calling Postimees a primary source is a crime. It is the biggest and oldest Estonian newspaper.

Dont even see the reason for discarding number8.

Did you check Estonian wikipedia and the "Eesti entsüklopeedia" entry? Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said the merge discussion in the Postimees source is primary. Information is primary or secondary depending on the question asked of the source and is nothing to do with the provenance of the source. The source is a reliable one, certainly, and the news report contains information that is secondary, which I considered. I said the information about the merge discussion itself was primary, because the article is reporting the merge discussion. Take a look at WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Do you have sources from the Estonian wikipedia page we should be considering? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanos Sinos

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

Deprodded without improvement. Current sourcing does not show notability, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, and with a high citation count of a whopping 11, and not seeming to meet any of the other criteria, does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find notability in GNG or Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Gbooks link above shows several volumes either citing or discussing this author, in English and German. He worked on the Parthenon among other things, I'd say these show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify please? Bearian (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't speak Greek, but I suspect that we may be applying our RS criteria only for English sources here. There seems to be more – and quite possibly enough to justify keeping the article – in Greek about Στέφανος Σίνος (e.g., a number of books, various articles including this one showing Sinos giving a tour of Mystras to Giscard d'Estaing, etc.). I think we may want to pause and look a bit deeper. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (2): Further to the above, we have two entities on wikidata (d:Q113809331 and d:Q131292844), which I suspect may actually be the same person. If you look at a few of the entries in the first (such as the American Academy), the date ranges seems to correspond more closely to the subject of the second – which is to say, the subject of this discussion (I've depreciated the 1900 dob in the Wikidata record as a precaution). This needs more work, but it seems like it also points towards keeping the article (and tagging it with the appropriate maintenance tags, etc.). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The two Wikidata entities have now been merged (confirmed as same person) resulting in correct display of the various Authority Control databases in which Sinos appears (NB: w:Template:Authority control configured with "expanded" parameter for the duration of this discussion). This adds further weight to the argument for keeping and improving the article. It may be difficult to find English language sources (for myriad reasons), although his last book on the Archaeological Site of Mystras seems to have been either written in or translated into English. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per comments above. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kidz Bop (album)

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

The various Kidz Bop album releases are not notable by themselves. They were all turned into redirects by WanderingWanda in 2019, with an explanatory note available at Talk:Kidz Bop#Pruning ✂️. All the albums that were recently raised up again from redirects should be returned to redirects. Even though the albums generally register on the Billboard charts, the topic of Kidz Bop albums can be covered much better at the central Kidz Bop page which has a list of albums and chart results. There is nothing remarkable about the individual albums. Even Sputnik says that nobody cares about these albums. Let's return them all to redirects, including Kidz Bop (album), Kidz Bop 2, Kidz Bop 3, Kidz Bop 4 and Kidz Bop 7. Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heather L. Childers

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

This is a different kind of article. It looks this person has been quoted for her opinion on local events in her community over the past few decades, but hasn't ever been the subject of WP:SIGCOV. Some of the other refs are things like local dentist rankings and her dental practices listing with the state division of corporations. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I find no coverage about this person, what's used in the article is database listings and confirmation of employment. No claim to notability, PROMO spam. Oaktree b (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Braxton Cole

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

American professional wrestler who signed with WWE Evolve last month and, as far as I can tell, has only taken part in a single wrestling match so far. For what it's worth, he definitely doesn't meet the requirements of WP:PWBIO. Of course, he might be notable in the future, but he's not there yet. His college football career is also unremarkable. Pichpich (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

E4 Entertainment

AfDs for this article:

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

Was deleted a few years ago, but I don't think it was eligible for C4. The only sources which talk about the company are regurgitated press releases, not true news articles. Many, if not most, of the current sources do not even mention the studio. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bucci (Malawian singer)

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Rugby Union

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

These sporting groups do not appear to meet WP:GNG. I can find sources online that they exist, but not independent third party sources, nor significant coverage. Flibirigit (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for deletion:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Victoria Ashby

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL

I had a look for sources, and pretty much the only things I could find were of her failed general election campaign. In addition, I tried searching up the organisation she was head of and that came up with barely anything as well. SuperGuy212 (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SuperGuy212 (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Love, Faith, Hope

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Was a soft delete back in 2022, recently undeleted without improvement. 3 of the 4 sources in the article do not even mention the subject. I'll quote the previous nominator's (Vacant0) rationale, since it still applies: "I've only found passing mentions such as: attendance of a protest during the 2022 North Kosovo crisis, announcement that they will take part in the 2022 Belgrade City Assembly election (they ended up placing second to last with only 5,000 votes), an anti-government event that was organized by its leader (Nemanja Šarović) and the announcement that Šarović formed this movement. Additionally, this movement has not been represented in any legislature since its foundation, and it seems to entirely be focused on the actions and announcements of its leader (its facebook page can be also seen as proof of this besides these sources that I've listed)." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Nemanja Šarović: The movement has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Its activities are mostly tied to its leader Šarović. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Vacant0 Боки 💬 📝 06:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No Vote/Comment: The page was undeleted at my request, and my motivation for wanting it restored was largely technical. (Before yesterday, the Nemanja Šarović page included a link to the entry for "Love, Faith, Hope" on the Serbian language wiki; this struck me as bad form if restoring the English language page was an option.) I've just undertaken a rewrite of the page, adding some information about the movement's failed 2022 campaign in Belgrade and its non-campaigns in 2023 and 2024, as well as mentioning Šarović's role with KTV Zrenjanin. My view is that the increased media spotlight on Šarović in recent months has likely pushed the party over the threshold of notability, though I won't object if the consensus is to delete or merge the page – I'd just request that people review the page in its current form before finalizing their decision. CJCurrie (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The also present sources demonstrate sufficient notability. Svartner (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Meyers

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

U.S. military officer, known for being relieved of command of the U.S. base in Greenland for apparently political reasons. But that is the only context in which I can find media coverage of her, making this a WP:BLP1E case. The article is also about essentially nothing else but that incident. Said incident is already covered in about the same length at Pituffik Space Base, to which this title could be redirected. Sandstein 12:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Politics, and United States of America. Sandstein 12:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Failed GNG, weak sources as most of the sources are ot reliable, independent. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this doesn't belong on Wikipedia and isn't worth the space it takes up. This was a very minor newsflash but it is so over and nobody cares. 204.111.161.248 (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some coverage found about the email [24], [25], [26], [27]. I suppose this could also be mentioned in an article about the base, I'm not sure the "email incident" would be notable enough for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both my parents were in the Air Force. My mother began serving in the 1940s. I think women’s participation in the Air Force, and in all government positions, is important. Col. Meyers service in Greenland is part of history and should be retained in Wikipedia. 2600:1700:FCA0:1700:D5DF:7A7:54C4:4B1B (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Women have a role in military which should be recognized and it seems to be rebuilt. Also, it is an example of some purge by the Trump administration. There is an echo worldwide about the causa. Keep. --Bernd Rohlfs (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We're not righting great wrongs here, and the subject isn't notable for a single event. Including pertinent information in the base's article should suffice. Intothat darkness 18:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Oaktree b presented sources. Svartner (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:BLP1E, there is no evidence of notability except for the email and it's fallout. An article on her firing might be worthwhile, but there isn't sourcing to support a BLP in her case. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not have the needed coverage outside of her firing to have a BLP article. This falls squarely into WP:BLP1E territory, although an article on her firing might pass the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Gwalior Khasgi Bazar, Kala Gopal Apartment fire

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

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Incident isn't notable enough for a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a notable incident that was widely covered in reliable sources like Dainik Bhaskar, Times Of India, ANI etc . It has received media attention and public support, including statements from elected officials. It meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for events and deserves to be retained. Michael Fernandes2007 (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a notable incident that was widely covered in reliable sources like Dainik Bhaskar, Times Of India, ANI etc . It has received media attention and public support, including statements from elected officials. It meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for events and deserves to be retained. Michael Fernandes2007 (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The article meets the notability criteria under WP:EVENT and WP:NOTE. The Gwalior Khasgi Bazar, Kala Gopal Apartment fire has been covered in-depth by multiple reliable, independent sources, including national and regional media (Assam Tribune, Daijiworld, Wikipedia-cited articles) which reported not only the fire but also the legal aftermath, public safety discussions, and community impact which makes it suitable for WP:RS

This is not a routine local incident — the scale of the event, the involvement of illegally stored hazardous materials, the injury of emergency personnel, and the legal and civic consequences demonstrate lasting notability. The article is verifiable per WP:V and written in a neutral tone in line with WP:NPOV.

Arguments about the article being "recent" WP:RECENT or local WP:LOCAL do not apply here, as the coverage goes well beyond routine reporting and the issues raised are of broader social concern in India.

Unless substantial evidence is presented that this is not a notable event, the article should be retained.

Thanks VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A brief burst of news coverage does not indicate notability. Recreate if it ever becomes a WP:CASESTUDY. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a notable incident that was widely covered in reliable sources like Dainik Bhaskar, Times Of India, ANI etc . It has received media attention and public support, including statements from elected officials. It meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for events and deserves to be retained. Michael Fernandes2007 (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EVENTCRIT: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. No enduring significance to be seen here. "Government officials are reviewing permit records and considering stricter enforcement of building codes" - so nothing has actually happened yet as a result. Astaire (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deete A very sad story, but this is routine news coverage of a local fire with a standard response at this point (with the authorities 'shocked' at what happened even though they approved it and then 'cleaning' up the mess; sadly, the standard script for 'Indian workplace in a place it was never approved to be in' fires) with standard reporting in national sources. And Michael, if you respond to this vote, please do it in your own words and not with a copied macro shortcut to the same script. Nathannah • 📮 20:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sex, Desire, and Taboo in South Asia: Religion, Culture of Ability and Patriarchy

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

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

The first source in this article (the review in South Asia Research [28]) is fine and I have no problem with it. However, the other four sources are dubious.

The Kathmandu Post [29] was discussed in the Mochan AFD where it was deemed not reliable due to over-the-top praise for the author and book.
República [30] was discussed in the Running from the Dreamland AFD where it was deemed not reliable due to the article's author apparently having a close connection with the book's author.
The Annapurna Express [31] review is highly suspicious and reads like an LLM text.
The National News Agency RSS [32] review is of a different book by the author (Sex, Gender and Disability in Nepal, which was deleted). No relevance for this book's notability.

With just one clearly independent and reliable review, this doesn't pass WP:NBOOK. Astaire (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Sexuality and gender, and Nepal. Astaire (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also went through all the sources you pointed out and they appear to be national media outlets, highly reliable and the author themselve appear to be very prolific. the book getting reviewed in such journal and media outlets is not a small feat and the book itself seems to be published by very well know publisher when I checked it. I also looked at how some other wikipedia editors have given a lot of credibility to those media outlets. With that said,I think this article strongly deserves credibility. Actually I don't think wikipedia is a realiable source anyway to determine the credibility of something because if there is a syndicate of the majority editors who have no knowledge of the content and the source and are biased may end up deleting even good articles. It looks like the author has published an article in the sage journal too, and also in editorial board under sociology so you may say they are personally connected to sage Journal. only Astire and Ramadan appear to be running after this writer and their articles as if they are paid for it. 209.212.129.150 (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your IP address belongs to South Georgia State College, where Tulasi Acharya is a professor [33]. You also created Draft:Tulasi Acharya. If you have a conflict of interest with the article subject, please declare it now per WP:COI. Astaire (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European Communist Action

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

Another communist organization that fails WP:GNG. No independent and reliable sources were found except bulletins of communist parties and their spinoffs. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Europe. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is clearly inherently notable as a successor organization to INITIATIVE, and an organization that has seats within bodies of the EU. This, once again, is the third case of WP:IDONTLIKE that you have proposed. Your point that "no independent and reliable sources were found" is a blatant lie. Castroonthemoon (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist Communist Youth Association of Narva

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

This article has existed more or less unchanged as a stub since it was first created in 2006 (diff). Back in 2020, I expanded it with a translation of the Estonian Wikipedia article (diff). I did not realise at the time of writing, but I have now noticed (five years later) that the Estonian Wikipedia article was itself a copyright violation, copied word-for-word from the single source this article has ever cited (Martinson). A user on the Estonian Wikipedia has nominated that article for deletion, and I feel compelled to follow their lead.

I wasn't able to find any evidence of significant coverage of this organisation in historical literature. A cursory search on Google Scholar finds absolutely nothing. A Google web search doesn't turn up much either, largely just mirrors of this Wikipedia page and its Estonian counterpart, or bad sources that are clearly drawing from Wikipedia. The only source cited in this article gives barely a brief passing reference to this organisation, as part of a larger section about the Estonian socialist youth during the 1917-1918 revolution.

As it is unclear if this can be considered a notable organisation, as it does not look like it can be expanded beyond this state, and as it is built off a copy-paste of its only source, I'm nominating this article for deletion. If anything about it must be saved, I'd recommend merging it into the article on anarchism in Estonia, which is the only article that currently links to this one. Grnrchst (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Estonia, and Russia. Grnrchst (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For the record, I've rewritten the article so the copyvio issue is dealt with in the current version of the article (diff). --Grnrchst (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Initiative

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

No evidence of notability and existence. This article has no sources, i tried to search on the internet but couldn't find anything. Possible hoax? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Austria. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Initiative of Communist and Workers' Parties

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

Same problems as World Anti-Imperialist Platform. 0 independent and reliable sources. All sources in this article are either bulletins of communist parties, phishing websites or organization's own website. I tried to search online about this organization but was not able to find any reliable sources. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Martin (racing driver)

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

No in-depth coverage of him whatsoever, failed to qualify for only race he attempted. All sources just cover him as part of an entry list or solely mention his name. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unable to find any reliable, independent, and secondary sources. Only able to find database entries. Fails WP:GNG. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anson Seabra

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

Lots of hits on non-reliable and social media sites, can't find any in-depth references from independent, reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Brown (book series)

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. No sources attributed and no independent, reliable sources that are able to be referenced.

WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Young Democrats

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

Subject doesn't appear to be notable. It's affiliated with a national organization, but I don't think it warrants a separate article for itself. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NORG; could not find significant coverage, although there are a lot of mentions in various news articles. Regional chapters of organizations are practically never notable (unless the organization has a lot of power). This one is no different. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saphron Initiative

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

Subject does not appear to be notable. Fails WP:NGO. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SC Brühl (Germany)

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

Might be the language barrier, but I cannot find any in-depth coverage of this club in independent, reliable sources. Was deprodded with the rationale that sources must exist, but without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep History is written in Heiner Gillmeister: Football in the Cologne region. The History of SC Brühl, Göttingen 2012, ISBN 978-3-89533-881-6 which is WP:SIGCOV. Govvy (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Gowy. Svartner (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - that's a nice source from Govvy, however 1 in-depth source does not meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Cem

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

Upon searching for reliable sources, it looks like the subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Germany, and Turkey. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Kubr

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

Contested redirect without improvement. If WP:NFOOTY still applied, would meet that requirement, but searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, just stat pages. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on whether he's notable, but @Onel5969: may I suggest that if you come across an active non-notable footballer, you take it to AFD or PROD rather than BLAR as you previously did here? Footballers often move between lots of teams, so redirecting it to the one the subject is at presently could quickly become outdated and incorrect. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Flame (student publication)

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

Nothing but mentions in non-primary sources. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Contested redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Arts and Letters#The Flame PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tuscan melon

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT, proprietary cultivar grown and sold by a single grower. References are not reliable, naturesproduce.com and specialtyproduce.com appear to be food distributors offering information about the products they sell in turn, and clovegarden.com appears to be a one-person blog. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (promotional, fails GNG, no reliable sources). GoldRomean (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak keep~~ From what I remember about melon sales at Southern California farmer's markets, tuscan melons are a group of cultivars more than a specific brand, though it looks like "Tuscan Style" is a trademark. I agree the article needs to be updated as it is promotional. Here is an agricultural study that includes various types of tuscan melon: [34]. A deeper look is probably needed to get past the promotional stuff.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's something here. The tables in that study indicate that Tuscan is in fact a category of melon cultivars. That being said, that's not how the article or current references treat the topic, instead being about one specific marketed cultivar, and the article would need to be entirely rewritten from new sources to be about that group. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As I have tried to do more research, I'm not finding much that covers Tuscan melons/cantaloupes in detail, so this may be better off as a redirect. Cantaloupe seems like the best target as it already has blurbs about various classes of melon and tuscan melons could be easily added. Right now I'm not sure if "tuscan" melons are different from the "charentais" european melons that are already listed on cantaloupe.

This info from bayer seeds is the best I have found that describes how Tuscan varieties differ the more traditional varieties sold in the US:

https://www.vegetables.bayer.com/ca/en-ca/resources/agronomic-spotlights/melon-types.html

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some coverage in cookbooks [35] with coverage in Gscholar, [36], [37]. Oaktree b (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclo.

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

Fails WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. A cursory search did not produce anything useful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Entertainment, and Germany. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Bukirwa Muwanguzi

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:NSCHOLAR, and with a high citation count of 10, and not seeming to meet any of the other criteria, fails WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

/mlp/

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

Fails WP:GNG, many of the existing references are either to unreliable sources, or do not mention the article's subject at all. Seems to be some WP:SYNTH going on as well. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it meets notability standards. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is an 18-page ethnographic study on Sexualities which describes and analyzes in /mlp/ in great detail. The paper is linked below, where the search term "/mlp/" shows up 68 times. In addition, there are other sources that describe /mlp/ and its function and/or users. The strongest 3 sources are given below; the first source is the strongest.

Bailey, John; Harvey, Brenna (2017). "'That pony is real sexy': My Little Pony fans, sexual abjection, and the politics of masculinity online". Sexualities. 22 (3): 325–342. doi:10.1177/1363460717731932.

"Through ethnographic observation of the My Little Pony (/mlp/) discussion board on the website 4chan, we find that these men construct a communal identity around their sexual desires." (The whole paper discusses /mlp/, so it is difficult to quote exactly which parts discuss it. I suggest clicking on the link and skimming through the paper to confirm that the topic of discussion is indeed /mlp/.)

Schimpf, Kaitlyn Elizabeth (October 2015). "Straight from the Horse's Mouth: A Case Study on the Adult Male Fans of My Little Pony". MacEwan University Student eJournal. 2 (1). doi:10.31542/j.muse.192.

Another case study. "This research began on the anonymous message board of 4chan, more specifically the board dedicated to My Little Pony fans, known as /mlp/. The first few visits were just to get a feel for the general themes of the daily threads—to understand what the fans talked about on a daily basis. These included threads such as the “Nightly Twilight Thread,” which discussed a new comic that featured this specific pony heavily as well as discussing “what kind of television/movies do you feel that Twilight would enjoy watching the most” (retrieved from 4chan.org/mlp on March 19, 2014). Another being a role-playing thread in which the poster plays as a pony in the fictional land of Equestria (4chan.org/mlp, March 19, 2014). After it was determined that the threads on these message boards were incredibly diverse and changed daily, it was necessary to narrow the search down to a key few themes. Still exclusively using [/mlp/], I narrowed down the search for threads discussing why these individuals loved the show so much. The search was also expanded to threads that discussed how fans are treated by outsiders. I purely waited for these conversations to be started by others, never prompting my own discussion. Due to this fact, it was not required to register as a user on any of these sites. I merely navigated through them as a guest and read through discussions that had already begun."

Tiffany, Kaitlyn (2020-06-23). "'My Little Pony' Fans Are Ready to Admit They Have a Nazi Problem". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2021-06-04.

"The fandom was born on 4chan, the largest den of chaos and toxic beliefs available on the internet. In 2012, a message board called /mlp/ was set up because My Little Pony conversation was taking up too much space on boards for TV and comics. It took off because there is nothing 4chan likes better than things spiraling out of control. [...] Now the real world and Equestria are colliding. Over the past few weeks, some My Little Pony fans have mocked the protests with racist fan art, most of which was posted to Derpibooru, then massively upvoted by /mlp/ users. One much-discussed image was a pony version of a white-nationalist meme that circulated after the launch of a SpaceX rocket to the International Space Station: a photo of the two white astronauts side by side with a photo of black protesters “rioting.” The artist replaced the black people in the image with cartoon zebras—which are awkwardly coded as African in the real My Little Pony universe, but often referred to on [/mlp/] with a portmanteau of zebra and the N-word. “Beautiful,” one [/mlp/] user responded to the image. “Perfect for subtle messaging.”"

GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 18:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree there are synth problems with the article's construction (I would try to limit the article's content to only sources that at least mention /mlp/) but it is notable as shown, and the synth isnt TNT worthy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While writing the article, I did have the same question. For example, in one of the Buzzfeed News articles, the author writes The following image was uploaded to 4chan over the weekend., but doesn't actually say it was uploaded to /mlp/. But the screenshots in the article shows that it was indeed uploaded to /mlp/ and not anywhere else on 4chan. What should be done in this case? Is it WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to write an infamous incident known as the "Rainbow Dash Cum Jar" gained notoriety when images of a Rainbow Dash figurine submerged in semen left to boil near a radiator were shared on /mlp/, or should I omit this entirely because the author never explicitly wrote "/mlp/"? I've actually run into this same problem in other articles, where authors will write "4chan" to mean "/mlp/" when it was evident that the content was actually posted on /mlp/. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 22:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maxine Mosley

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

Non-notable political candidate and activist. Only coverage is routine stuff from local outlets. Don't see anything she's done that would make her notable enough for a Wikipedia page, and news outlets seem to agree with me judging by the lack of coverage. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Strictly local election coverage [38], [39], nothing notable for a wikipedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NPOL as subject was never been elected to state-wide office nor is she a major local figure who has received WP:SIGCOV. She does not appear to meet WP:GNG either. Besides a mention in AP[40] (in an article about the litigation that ensued after a close race between subject and another candidate, i.e. not sigcov of her specifically) I did not find anything besides routine local coverage during a search of newspapers.com and google/bing news. I also don't see a clear merge or redirect target. Zzz plant (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ugandan Pastors

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

Cant see that this list is of encyclopedic value; the function would surely be better served as a category. TheLongTone (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Martins

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV, subject is only even potentially notable in connection with a single event, the 1978 Revelation on Priesthood. Cited sources establishing notability are not WP:INDEPENDENT. They consist of: the subject's autobiography, two publications by the subject's employer (BYU), a Deseret News Church News article (an official mouthpiece of the LDS Church, which owns BYU), and an article in the Faith section of the LDS Church-owned Deseret News. Jbt89 (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Latter Day Saints, and Hawaii. Jbt89 (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Light years from a pass in WP:Prof. Notability will have to be found elsewhere. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 19 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 WP:A7, no indication of importance. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dewan Md Al Osaimin

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

Not in English Ktkvtsh (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this stub has no English-language content. Jbt89 (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A1 and WP:A7. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete spam, unsourced and non-English content. Mehedi Abedin 16:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wayne Lee Rea III

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

Can't see anything that establishes notability. I don't think a redirect to Proton (band) is appropriate given their very dubious notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply not enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, and I agree a redirect to the band is not appropriate. Apologies to TheLongTone for editing their comment, but the link to the band was a typo.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avathuvadi

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

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

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

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

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

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 14:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Richards (musician)

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

Lack of independent notability. I tried to redirect to Taproot, but this was reverted. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, not independatly notable.TheLongTone (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this article does have independent notability because it includes work that Stephen Richards has done outside of the band Taproot. T Yorke (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Four Corners, Brampton

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

This is the nickname for the downtown area of Brampton, which the same user created an article for, Downtown Brampton. (It's been moved to the draft space, as it's littered with inaccuracies.) Zanimum (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nazar Abbas Naqvi

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

Article contains zero in-depth sources, and searches turned up zero in-depth sources. Not sure how this has survived 14 years. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NPOL#2. I can see some WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources but nothing to sustain notability. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The subject does not meet the criteria outlined at WP:NPOL, and there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG. GSS ^💬 20:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fire (Kids See Ghosts song)

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Fontana

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

Does not comply with WP:NACTRESS, not prepared for main space. It may be WP:TOOSOON. Not a significant role in any movies. Lack of significant coverage. Bakhtar40 (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, United States of America, and Ohio. Bakhtar40 (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Designbox

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

Non-notable software; can't find any SIGCOV besides a few trivial mentions ([41], [42]). Deproded in 2010 without explanation. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, has been without sources since it was created and still nothing indicating its notability. Sources in the article are primary to the subject. Mekomo (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant, independent coverage. Looking back, it seems that there was a successful request for undeletion for this article in 2010, but there was no evidence of notability shown there, just unsourced claims that it is notable.[43] death pact (again) 17:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the context around the PROD! Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aris Briggs

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. The current sources in the article are all primary to teams the subject played for, and a WP:BEFORE came up with [[44]] but student newspapers generally aren't considered as being independent. Let'srun (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Georgia (U.S. state), Indiana, and Utah. Let'srun (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Jbt89 (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April Hutchinson

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

Does not meet WP:NATHLETE, and the page is almost entirely comprised by primary sources not independent of the subject for statements of fact, primary sources of non notable sporting events, low quality unreliable blogs such as Reduxx, and generally unreliable or outright unreliable news sources such as Fox News, Rebel News, and New York Post on issues related to GENSEX to the point where once those sources are excised the subject does not meet any form of notability even as an Anti-Trans activist. Page was accepted after a series of failed reviews despite no edits between the last review pointing out the problems with the page and the acceptance by a separate reviewer, which may explain some of these problems. Relm (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Draftify or Delete I believe this article was not ready to come out of draft space, and the editor who worked on it had not responded to the critique of the previous submission or touched Wikipedia since. I think the issues with the page are substantial enough to consider outright deletion, but sending it back to draft space for the original author - should they return to the project - to continue to get used to WP:RSP may be sufficient. Relm (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is false.

Here are the current citations and sports accomplishments that are notable:

North American Powerlifting Federation

Megyn Kelly Show

Open Powerlifting

Alberta Assembly

CBC News

New York Post

NBC 15 News

London Free Press (2)

Fox News (2)

Newsweek

Outkick (2)

CTV News

Sports achievements:

North American Regional Powerlifting Championships

Gold medal – first place 2022 Panama Masters 1

Silver medal – second place 2022 Cayman Islands Masters 1

Nationals

Silver medal – second place 2022 Newfoundland Masters 1

Gold medal – first place 2023 British Columbia Masters 1

Central Canadian Powerlifting and Bench Press Championships

Gold medal – first place 2021 Ontario Masters 1

Ontario Provincials

Gold medal – first place 2022 Ontario Open

OPA Masters and Open Provincial Powerlifting Championship

Gold medal – first place 2023 Ontario Masters 1

Reduxx has one single article.

This request is not accurate. QcAmbitious (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crossposting from the talk page[45]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NATHLETE, WP:RELIABLE, WP:PRIMARY/WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDEPENDENT, and WP:DUE.

A source existing does not make the source notable, nor does it make it reliable. Wikipedia prioritizes reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

This page is primarily built on primary sources not independent of the author, or which do not provide any semblance of notability such as the direct links to event placements and her personal details. Primary sources are okay in some circumstances, but in this case all that would be left in early life is a link to her own page cited to a claim that she was born in Ontario. Career beginnings section is exclusively cited to primary sources. So far there is nothing to suggest this person is notable as an athlete, just that their athletic profile exists. If someone made a page for me and cited my USChess profile, that would not make me notable as a chess player - what would is if reliable secondary sources discuss my play.

The 'women's rights advocate' claim is sourced to a Megyn Kelly appearance. Megyn Kelly's show - and syndicated television news generally speaking - is not a reliable source.

The activism section is sourced to a vimeo video by the subject, rebel news (not a reliable source [46]), a link to assembly minutes (Primary source); and then a citelist of a podcast, two WP:UNDUE blogposts, and a link to a primary source from an anti trans advocacy group.

So now we get to the Controversy section.

Hutchinson gained attention after being removed from the "Resilient London: Meet Your Neighbours" exhibit at Museum London, Ontario, due to her comments on transgender athletes.

This claim is cited to 7 sources. CBC News (mostly reliable with the caveat that it's state funded), Reduxx (a hate blog), another blog, the New York Post (Unreliable per WP:NYPOST), a local affiliate of NBC which does not actually contribute to the claim but rather is just a primary source for the comments themselves, London Free Press (A local newspaper), GB news (unreliable, and would be deprecated if it was cited more [47]), and Fox news (unreliable WP:FOXNEWS).

We then have an accidental double cite of the same CBC news article, Newsweek (used to be reliable, but now isn't WP:NEWSWEEK), True North (definitely an unreliable news source and I'm happy to take that to WP:RSN if you want confirmation). We then have Fox News again, Daily Citizen (an anti LGBT advocacy group, not a news source), true north again, and then Fox News a third time. Next is a triplet of sources, the first to a blogpost, the second to Sportskeeda - which I have never heard of but I will assume for the benefit of the doubt that it is fine, and Outkick (which is under FOX News). Outkick again, and the earlier local newspaper from her home town.

The personal life snippet about alcoholism is sourced to Gamesday London (sports section of the earlier local paper) and CTV which is fine.

So after all of that, we are left with:

A single CBC article and potentially a Sportskeeda article covering her comments and the aftermath, and the CTV article about her alcoholism.

That's 2, possibly 3, reliable secondary sources at best to provide notability. This is a local interest story picked up by anti trans advocates, but she is not even notable for that relative to other figures like Riley Gaines. This person does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Relm (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Sportskeeda is considered unreliable. JoelleJay (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Relm (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Sport of athletics, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources about the subject speaking out about trans women participating in powerlifting, e.g. The London Free Press, CBC News, a local NBC news affiliate, The Montreal Gazette (November 2023) and The Windsor Star (June 2024). There are also two articles before this time in 2022 about the subject's path to powerlifting in The London Free Press and CTV News. I can understand how these could be missed given the multiple non-independent, non-Wikipedia notable references in the article. Nonetheless, the article appears to meet WP:BASIC. Not sure if article meets WP:NATH as there is no Wikipedia policy guidance on this; the subject has placed 1st five times and 2nd two times in competitions. Note that this article cleared the WP:AFC process last month. Nnev66 (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These were not missed and were discussed in my above post save the Montreal Gazette and Windsor Star (not in the article to my knowledge). The issue is that of the sources which are left with the exception of CTV News and CBC News, these are all local papers - and they're all covering the same two local interest stories about this person. There is a paucity of reliable sources above the local level, and what they cover does not seem to make this individual notable as an athlete or as an activist. In regards to the AFC, the article was declined three times, and the last one in January - the page received no edits between being declined for serious issues and being accepted by a different reviewer last month. Relm (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - RelmC, this is a lot to read here. But before I spend too much time reviewing all these sources: you appear to have struck your draftify/delete. You don't say why. Was this because it is assumed as nom.? Or did you strike because you are withdrawing the nomination? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My vote was striked by Nfitz who - correctly as I understand it - striked my vote as the one who nominates is presumed to be voting to delete. Hope this clarifies. Relm (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, yes, thanks. It is correct that the nom. vote is assumed, but I wasn't clear on that being the reason. Now I am. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep although I would almost be happier with draftify, based on some concerns about the way the page is presented. If we keep it I would support removing the activism and controversy sections altogether in favour of a couple of sentences in the career section limited to the most salient details unless and until secondary sources are written about that issue. But it is a keep because we appear to be over the threshold for WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. But only just, in fact. Sources must be secondary, and I don't think the trans women participation reports qualify. Now, we could get into long discussions about that, but let's be clear: the question of what is primary or secondary in a source depends on the question being asked of it. A source such as this one [48], mentioned above, is primary for the matter of report (that a trans athlete saw a backlash) but secondary in any background given about Hutchinson. But it doesn't give us any significant background. The statements made by Hutchinson are primary reporting regarding the matter that is the occasion of the article. To put that another way, what can we say about Hutchinson from that and similar articles? We are writing a biography, and if the only thing the source adds is that she said something relating to the matter of the trans competitor, then that is primary reporting - and WP:BLP is clear that we should be waiting for secondary sourcing for that. Nevertheless there are other articles, particularly those that talk about her overcoming addiction, that tell us significantly more about her and from which an article can be written. Indeed, that was why she was in the Museum London exhibit in the first place. Having said all that, there is indeed an issue that much of the coverage is local. She is an inspiring local interest story. I am not presonally convinced she is very notable beyond that, but I believe the Wikipedia consensus would generally find someone with this amount of coverage crosses the line. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would be useful to have further analysis on extent of reliable sourcing and whether the GNG/BIO is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find articles about her suspension for saying things people didn't like, I don't think that meets notability here. I don't see enough about the athletic career otherwise, just not enough for an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gnews brings up about 6 pages of hits, only about the ban over what this person said. There is nothing from before that time to show a notable athletic career. The numerous wins suggest notability, but it's not an automatic pass. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – There are some reliable sources such as CBC News and the Canadian newspapers Montreal Gazette and Windsor Star. In the last week about 7,000 bytes of poorly sourced content has been removed from the article. Some further content could be trimmed, but I think this article marginally crosses the line for notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Karma

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a Mexican band deleted in 2008 and recreated in 2012. I spotted only two independent sources with insignificant-to-sparse coverage ([49] and [50]). Checked archive.org, google news, google books. LastJabberwocky (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Mexico. LastJabberwocky (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Case for Solomon

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

Zero content beyond existence of book itself, which is now mentioned in subject article Disappearance of Bobby Dunbar. U-Mos (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a "Further reading" section of the article about the Disappearance of Bobby Dunbar. While that article currently mentions the book, this is only in passing. The book is not cited as a source and there are no publication details about the book that a formal citation or "Further reading" entry would carry. If the article is merely blanked and redirected then that publication information, which is in the stub article, would be lost. Also, there appears to be sufficient content in the article about the disappearance of Bobby Dunbar to flesh out the article about the book, A Case for Solomon with details of the authors' motivations for writing it, so I would support Keeping the article if it can be improved with additional content and sources. The purpose of deletion is to challenge the notability of an article, not delete articles that currently have little content. This article currently has one cited source which suggests the book is potentially notable if there are other sources that are not currently cited. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes WP:NBOOK with reviews in Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, Maclean's, the Boston Globe, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Vanity Fair. Will do my best to expand the article a bit based on these reviews now. MCE89 (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was confused by the disconnect between the article and the nomination until I checked the history and saw that it had just been edited. The sources added by @MCE89: support notability per WP:NBOOK. Schazjmd (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources in the article meets WP:NBOOK. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HIT Universe

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

Other than the confirmation about sequels; no coverage on sources for a film universe. Vestrian24Bio 08:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Vestrian24Bio 08:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a WP:SETINDEX and improve. The Hindi remake should be mentioned in the body of the text if such is the path chosen. -Mushy Yank. 10:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming without ~~universe~~ is possible, back to HIT (film series)] (currently a redirect). Especially from May, 1, when a third instalment is supposed to be released. So that I am not sure the timing of this AfD is ideal. -Mushy Yank. 10:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dudu-Osun

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

Appears to be a brand-specific promotional fork of African black soap. Almost all the references are about black soap itself, and this page routinely uses general black soap references to make specific claims about the brand. Thought about g11 speedy delete but this one looks just real enough to possibly escape a speedy delete. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanam Johar

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

Non-notable actor. Sources are insufficient for establishing notability, and subject does not appear to warrant a standalone article. Fails WP:NACTOR. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ghum_Hai_Kisikey_Pyaar_Meiin#Main -Mushy Yank. 12:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The actor was the second runner up in Nach Baliye 8. He played the episodic lead in Love on the Run series and in the web series Dhappa and Fuh Se Fanatasy. Last year, he was played one of the leads in the web series Flight Attendant. He is currently playing one of the leads in Ghum Hai Kisikey Pyaar Meiin. Isn't that enough for WP:NACTOR? Iamaninnocentsoul (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It could be, especially because of his presence in the first production. If others think it is, not opposed to Keep, then. -Mushy Yank. 16:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sympitar

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

Musical instrument created by Fred Carlson and mentioned on his website, and mentioned in an interview by the person who commissioned him Carson to make Sympitar. The only independent source I could find on Sympitar with sparse-to-moderate coverage is this [51]. LastJabberwocky (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. LastJabberwocky (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cold in the Earth

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

Book that fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not exactly very notable, but there is two reviews, which should be enough for NBOOK. Review in Publishers Weekly (here) and Brazosport Facts (here). Also seems to be a review in Booklist (Gale A77135100), but it's just a sentence, and the rest is other books. Also possibly one in The Armchair Detective Volume 27, but I can't find a copy online. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A good alternative might be for us to make a series page and have the individual entries redirect there. I'm a big fan of having series pages as opposed to individual book entries unless the books are exceptionally notable, like Twilight or ASOIAF/AGOT. If I have time, I'll try to make a page for this, but if anyone else wants to tackle this, feel free. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes NBOOK, barely. If someone wants to write a series article and merge it to that, that would be preferable per NBOOK, but outright deletion is not warranted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VSS Raipur

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

non-notable. schools do not have inherent notability, they require significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:ORGCRIT. a WP:BEFORE has failed to produce this coverage. statements in-article about the school's chairman also do not give rise to notability per WP:INHERITORG. in short: fails WP:ORGCRIT. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chhattisgarh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORGDEPTH. GSS ^💬 21:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Amos

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV, sources for notability are mostly not WP:INDEPENDENT. Three are articles from NASA, Amos's longtime employer; two are from LDS Church-owned outlets (Deseret News, Church News) shortly after she began her term as a mission president for the LDS Church; one is a deadlink to SpaceRef; and one is a local news article about luncheon at which Amos was among the attendees. Jbt89 (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Latter Day Saints, Engineering, and Spaceflight. Jbt89 (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Improve - I feel like she might meet GNG. I added a few more sources which just support the positions she held at NASA. Jessamyn (my talk page) 18:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Perkins

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Cites one source which is not WP:INDEPENDENT of Marvin Perkins and not a WP:RS. The seven external links are similarly neither reliable nor independent coverage. Jbt89 (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Latter Day Saints, and Utah. Jbt89 (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bands and musicians. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Cherry

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Of the four sources, three aren't even about Alan Cherry, just mention his name in passing. The fourth is a very sparse IMDB page. Jbt89 (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Latter Day Saints, and Utah. Jbt89 (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:38, 19 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: [52] 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]

oppose deletion, keep due to misguided nomination, company is legitimate and there are reliable sources about it, nbminator should perform WP:BEFORE submitting AfD, the "... company deserves to be deleted" appears subjective Nayyn (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to opine on notability assuming the AfD is judged on the NCORP arguments and not the merits of the nomination? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's not get sidetracked by the nom statement - do we have sources for WP:NCORP or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oppose deletion, keep It clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing requirements, and none of the deletion criteria apply.

1. Notability (WP:N)

It has received significant independent coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources: ** la Repubblica: “Vita da cacciatore di bachi informatici. ‘Vi racconto il grande mercato dello spionaggio digitale’”.^[1] ** Vice: Lorenzo Franceschi‑Bicchierai, “Startup Offers $3 Million to Anyone Who Can Hack the iPhone”.^[2] Joseph Cox, “As Phones Get Harder to Hack, Zero Day Vendors Hunt for Router Exploits”.^[3] ** TechCrunch: Lorenzo Franceschi‑Bicchierai, “Price of zero‑day exploits rises as companies harden products against hackers”.^[4] ** SC Media: “Crowdfense expands exploit acquisition program”.^[5] ** Intelligence Online: “UAE : Abu Dhabi‑based vulnerability researcher Crowdfense undergoes a small revolution”.^[6] “Emerging SIGINT powers seek own cyber‑bounty hunters”.^[7]

2. Verifiability & Reliable Sources (WP:V, WP:RS)

All statements are supported by reputable third‑party publications; no self‑published sources are used except for uncontroversial corporate details (founding date, headquarters).

3. Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV)

The article neutrally describes Crowdfense’s business model, pricing, and ethical considerations, with proper attribution (e.g. “According to TechCrunch…”, “Vice reports…”).

4. Deletion Criteria

It is not a trivial or ephemeral subject, nor promotional spam, and contains no copyright or BLP issues.

In summary, it satisfies WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:NPOV. Mollatim (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)— Mollatim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ D’Alessandro, Jaime (5 August 2019). "Vita da cacciatore di bachi informatici. "Vi racconto il grande mercato dello spionaggio digitale"". la Repubblica (in Italian). Retrieved 14 April 2025.
^ Franceschi‑Bicchierai, Lorenzo (25 April 2018). "Startup Offers $3 Million to Anyone Who Can Hack the iPhone". Vice. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
^ Cox, Joseph (7 March 2019). "As Phones Get Harder to Hack, Zero Day Vendors Hunt for Router Exploits". Vice. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
^ Franceschi‑Bicchierai, Lorenzo (6 April 2024). "Price of zero‑day exploits rises as companies harden products against hackers". TechCrunch. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
^ Staff, SC (9 April 2024). "Crowdfense expands exploit acquisition program". SC Media. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
^ "UAE : Abu Dhabi‑based vulnerability researcher Crowdfense undergoes a small revolution". Intelligence Online. 30 August 2023. Retrieved 14 April 2025.
^ "Emerging SIGINT powers seek own cyber‑bounty hunters". Intelligence Online. 16 May 2018. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and the references provided miss the mark. For example, the references provided by first-time-contributor Mollatim above mostly fail ORGIND as follows:

la Repubblica (in Italian) article relies entirely on information provided by the founder, Manzoni, who the author met in Rome, and has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
This first Vice article fails for the same reasons. The author was "told" by Manzoni all of the details and the article has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
This also from Vice is totally based on an "announcement" and PR from Manzoni, fails ORGIND for the same reasons as the others above
Techcrunch article based on the company publishing an updated price list and regurgitates from that list what it is offering and what it offered previously. Unfortunately, the company doesn't provide any "Independent Content" about the company, it instead comments on the overall marketplace, and fails to provide in-depth info on the company. Fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
This from SCWorld is based on the same "updated price list" information as the TechCrunch article, comes with the obligatory comments from the company, it is regurgitated PR, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
The two references from Intelligence Online requires a subscription and I cannot access them right now. Based on the other references which first-time contributor posted above, none of which come close to meeting NCORP criteria, I'm inclined to assume these also will fail our criteria. Happy to change my stance if somebody can check out those article and confirm I'm mistaken tho. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two references from Intelligence Online requires a subscription and I cannot access them right now

Perhaps something has changed or it is my computer's configuration but both pages are showing the message "An error occurred while loading the page, please contact customer service for assistance." Is this the same message you got?

first-time contributor

Interesting. Before going further I don't think this has any bearing on the notability debate, but a first time contributor with such proper formatting is rare. Hell, I can't format like that. I was curious how the Crowdfense article had grown in size so I looked at the edit history. IP 5.195.224.90 also added intelligence online citations to Zerodium as well as Crowdfense. They did turn up this article which could count towards notability? Article interweaves original thought, even though information still comes from the founder:

The policy of avoiding selling zero-day exploits to certain countries certainly sets Crowdfense apart. But it’s an interesting choice for a company headquartered in a nondemocratic Asian country notorious for both its love of new and expensive technology alongside its longstanding and continuing human rights abuses. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 04:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The links provided by the Mollatim, the knowledgeable first-time contributor, point to a "paid-up subscription" page which is why you see the error message. This link shows a cut-off version inviting a subscription. You can do the same with the second link if you like. I pointed out that Mollatim was a first-time contributor for the same reasons you've highlighted - the editor demonstrates knowledge of formatting and referencing beyond an editor with comparable (lack of) experience. I agree that your opinion and my opinion might be that Crowdfense is unusual, but that isn't how we determine notability, that is why we look for reliable third-party sources that meet NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that your opinion and my opinion might be that Crowdfense is unusual, but that isn't how we determine notability, that is why we look for reliable third-party sources that meet NCORP criteria.

I assume you made comment in reference to the last paragraph of mine, which you erroneously (no hard feelings ^^) removed the blockquote from. It is a quotation from this article, which I remarked about. It is not my own opinion. Regards, Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 00:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that there is no requirement for an article author to recuse themselves from an AfD about it. @Scaledish: feel free to amend your note to a !vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I agree w/ HighKing's source analysis so leaning delete (although I can't access the Intelligence Online sources either)- but I found a few paywalled sources that seem to discuss the subject, a book[53] and a journal article[54]. Linking here in case anyone has access. Zzz plant (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Stokes

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Most cited sources are not WP:INDEPENDENT, a fact overlooked in the 2019 deletion discussion. Sources establishing notability consist of two articles from the Deseret News (Stokes sat on their editorial board, and one of the articles is announcing that fact), two human-interest stories from the Salt Lake Tribune (at the time they were written, party to a Joint Operating Agreement with the Deseret News [[55]] and operating out of the same building), and two interview transcripts on Mormon-themed blogs (possibly independent, but hardly WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV). Jbt89 (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Latter Day Saints, and Utah. Jbt89 (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree to your bias assessment of independent sources. While it is true the Deseret News should not be considered independent for this subject, the Salt Lake Tribune is a separate legal entity and there are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia that maintain its independent status. "Mormon-themed blogs" are also not an exclusionary source just as "baseball-themed blogs" would not be exclusionary to create interviews independent of Major League Baseball. I agree completely in efforts to require independent sourcing, but for a pioneering woman of color this article meets the requirements--and has already been reviewed as such in the past. Fullrabb (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Illinois, and Mississippi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 19 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]
~~Neutral (Lean~~ Keep) -- Definitely in the scope of "Some people who are clearly notable think that he's notable" based on the co-editorship of the OUP volume, plus one additional high prestige article. This in itself is borderline for WP:PROF -- it seems on the face of it enough for WP:AUTHOR, but these publications are not what that guideline was primarily meant to evaluate. My hunch is what Dclemens1971 was able to find will turn into more and will be a keep, but based on what I quickly found and what's here, I'm neutral. But it's definitely not an easy del. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC) (slight change of position -- see below)[reply]
Agreed, not an easy delete. I may withdraw this nomination, seeing how it pans out. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"'Some people who are clearly notable think that he's notable' based on the co-editorship of the OUP volume, ..." I don't think that follows at all. J.P. Moreland is the "name" author on the Oxford anthology, the other authors don't have to be notable for Oxford to be willing to publish it. Jahaza (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. he's third editor on the Oxford anthology, doesn't have an essay in the book himself, and the introduction is not a substantial piece of scholarship, it's only a page and a half long. The Zondervan anthology is a little better, but absent evidence of widespread adoption of the book as a textbook, I don't think he meets WP:NACADEMIC. I don't feel that it really meets WP:AUTHOR, he's only a part of the team compiling anthologies, not creating new works in his field. Jahaza (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are three accreditations I got from Dr. Khaldoun Sweis himself. I am positive links can be arranged.

"Dr. Sweis and I had a chance to work together on a project in Chicago’s South Loop neighborhood. The goal was to engage highly skeptical people in honest intellectual conversations around some of the deepest challenges to the Christian faith. Dr. Sweis spoke on the topic of ‘If there is a God, why is there so much evil.’ The conversation he led was spot on. His style of lecture was both hard hitting and emotionally powerful. He spoke from his heart and that came out in his passion on almost every point. But he also managed to make the highly intellectual and philosophical topics of his discussion accessible to everyone in the room. Beyond his ability to communicate, he was also a blessing to work with from the very beginning. I’m hopeful to work with Dr. Sweis many times in the future."

-Raef Chenery, South Loop Campus Pastor, Park Community Church

"Khaldoun Sweis is a solid Christian scholar with integrity and deep commitment to Jesus and His Kingdom. He has taught at a secular college for some time now, and he has remained faithful and learned a lot about how to talk to unbelievers. He is a respected teacher and speaker with passion and enthusiasm for his topic and the care of his audience. I was privileged to co-edit a book with Khaldoun that came out a few years ago with Oxford University Press. I recommend him as a speaker and friend of your ministry.– JP Moreland, Ph.D. JP Moreland Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University in La Mirada, California Moreland was selected in 2016 by The Best Schools as one of the 50 most influential living philosophers. He has authored, edited, or contributed papers to ninety-five books, including Does God Exist? (Prometheus), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Debating Christian Theism (Oxford.) He has also published close to 90 articles in journals"

“It has been a privilege to know Khaldoun Sweis over the years. I am pleased to recommend him as a speaker and scholar who communicates with insight, honesty, and clarity about the reasonableness and relevance of the Christian faith in the marketplace of ideas.”

Paul Copan

Paul Copan is a Christian theologian, analytic philosopher, apologist, and author. He is currently a professor at Palm Beach Atlantic University and holds the endowed Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics. AudunNilsenOslo (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If these testimonials (which look like book blurbs) are published anywhere, then they can be used. Otherwise it's no better than primary sourcing if Sweis is the only source. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per their talk page[56], @AudunNilsenOslo is an employee of Khaldoun Sweis. --Jahaza (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to your claim about being a third editor, WP:NAUTHOR encompasses book editors: This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if...The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). (Emphasis added.) Co-editing two books that have received multiple independent periodical reviews counts toward WP:NAUTHOR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971, I don't think that's likely to be the intent of that guideline. Editing an academic compilation is very different from the kind of work people tend to think of when they say "editor". It's not like editing, say, a new edition of Chaucer, or publishing a historical text for the first time, or being "so-and-so's editor". I might consider it for WP:NPROF if the edition was something like a Norton Anthology - but that kind of academic is almost certainly already notable for other things (that's why they're editing the Norton). -- asilvering (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having worked many years ago in academic publishing (unrelated to this person's area of expertise), I would respectfully disagree; co-editors do a lot of work in selecting, editing and preparing anthologies -- but I understand others may not read NAUTHOR the same way I do here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Anachronist and Jahaza. Does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NAUTHOR. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi

I was wondering about the many notations on this article.

There are so many of them, and ominous ones.

"This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (March 2025)"

I think this may have suited my initial draft a little more than what is there now ?

"This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. (March 2025)"

Can you be more specific?

"The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for academics. (March 2025)"

He has three degrees, is a member of two associations, has held talks all over the world, and has his name on the roster of three books. Not sure exactly what more you can expect? He, clearly, has made contributions in his field, even if they are not in paperback.

"This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. (April 2025)"

I redid the publications-list, so I believe this point is now addressed ?

Yours truly Audun H. Nilsen — Preceding unsigned comment added by AudunNilsenOslo (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom and great analysis by Jahaza. Editorship is not enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN or a place to WP:ADVERT. Gheus (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question for @Gheus: Why does NAUTHOR say This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals if, as you say, editorship is not enough to pass it? Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dclemens1971, WP:NAUTHOR can indeed apply to an editor, but this means the editor is to be judged on the basis of "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". The fact that a work has been reviewed and deemed significant doesn't automatically make its editors notable: the editor must also have played a major role in co-creating it. In practice, it's very hard to unpick exactly what an editor did in the creation of a volume of chapters written by others - especially if there are multiple editors. For this reason, not many people will achieve notability based solely on their editing activities. Most will satisfy either NPROF as an academic, or NAUTHOR as an author (or both). The current situation is therefore perhaps a rare one. Elemimele (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A small switch in my position -- I previously was Neutral (lean Keep), but now I switched above to a full Keep -- I was leaning Keep based on Oxford University Press edited volume, which is a major notable player in academic religious studies but might not be enough on its own. I didn't see that he was also lead author of an edited volume in "Zondervan Academic" Press, which is one of the major presses in (non-denominational) Christian academic research. Either of these press's endorsements on their own is borderline for me, but together they suggest a notability across two nearby but distinct spheres, and with it, I'm confident the encyclopedia is improved by including this article. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Reason I Can't Find My Love

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

Non-notable drama series that likely only has an article due to its use of songs by Namie Amuro. Both the English and Japanese versions of the article are almost completely unsourced. Performing a search for Japanese-language sources only results in product listings, streaming sites and forum posts, not reliable coverage. MidnightMayhem 06:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources to prove its notability. Warriorglance(talk to me) 06:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found an article from Oricon stating that the first episode had a 17% nationwide viewership. Mantan Web reports that its final episode had an 18.4% nationwide viewership. It seems to have been highly viewed in Japan. lullabying (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: they're not nationwide viewerships, but overall viewerships in the Kanto region of Japan. lullabying (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Lullabying, which seem to provide notability for the minimum WP:BASIC criteria. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tango Bar (2024 film)

AfDs for this article:

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

Promo for non notable film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No sign of any reviews. Being screened at minor festivals and winning minor awards does not satisfy NFILM. One of multiple promo pieces for Francisco Villarroel and his creations made by the same spammer. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tango Bar (2021 film). duffbeerforme (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Surely this is a hoax article. As the AFD discussion @Duffbeerforme linked above, it had a deletion back in 2021 but with has been put back up only with 2024 replacing the 2021 in it's title. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think IMDB got fooled by this article. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was in production in 2021 and finally got released in 2024 which explains the two different dates. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see in Spanish, given the coverage and awards/nominations, I consider a redirect (and merge) to List of Venezuelan films#2020s would seem appropriate, at least.-Mushy Yank. 07:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 10:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep César Bolívar working on it, distribution by Gran Cine, and winning an award at ELCO, probably places it as one of the bigger Venezuelan films of the last few years, especially among internal productions. I can look for more sources but, besides the COI, there doesn't seem to be a reason to delete. Kingsif (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:07, 19 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]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concerns about sourcing and notability. While some of the current sources are not ideal, I believe the subject is not far away from Wikipedia’s notability standards and can be improved rather than deleted. That said considering that the brand is acknowledged with several awards from SiGMA and SBC, covered on their official websites, and testifying that it is notable for its industry.

The article cites different sources, even though some of the current references may not be ideal, but I am working on researching and adding better sources to strengthen the article. Victoria Gregor (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it makes more sense to improve it than delete it. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 07:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it makes more sense to delete barely-disguised PR. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luminosity Entertainment (American film company)

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

Non-notable film company. Sources provided only mention the subject in passing. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. Author appears to have a COI, since they also created Luminosity Entertainment (American film studio), which was an exact duplicate of this article. Possible PE as well. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In case this page was kept, kindly move this article to Luminosity Entertainment which is a red link. The current title includes a unnessesary disambiguation. Thanks and No opinion on the AFD itself. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radio in the Flemish Community

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Netherlands. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This type of article is very common. To link a few: Radio in France, Radio in Germany, Radio in Austria and Radio in the Republic of Ireland. Concerning the notability of the Flemish Community: since Belgium is roughly split into two language regions, each region has its own set of radio stations. AllOriginalBubs (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AllOriginalBubs, the examples are from primary level national units. Do you claim that this level should be skipped in Belgium? gidonb (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mass media in Belgium#Radio as an ATD for an unjustified spinoff. Not sure that any of the information is missing there yet access and history would be preserved. gidonb (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search of Google Books shows the following English-language sources: Who Owns the World's Media? Media Concentration and Ownership Around the World (Oxford University Press) [57], pages 42-43; Media Compass: A Companion to International Media Landscapes (Wiley) [58], pages 22-23; The Media in Europe: The Euromedia Handbook (SAGE Publications) [59], pages 21-23. I'm sure there's more, in English and in other languages. If there were an article on Radio in Belgium, equivalent to Television in Belgium, it might be appropriate to merge this article there - but I don't think that merging or redirecting to Mass media in Belgium, which covers radio, tv, press, would be appropriate. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found some sources. General history: Publieke televisie in Vlaanderen p23-26 are only about the radio. Non public local radio: Regionale media in Vlaanderen: een doorlichting p.137-165; influence of the radio on dialect: Dialectverlies of dialectrevival?: actueel taalgedrag in Vlaanderen p.116; Radioplays: Translation and the Transnational Dynamics of the Radio Play in the Low Countries; I will place these and other sources on the talk page.

The books mostly cover radio together with television (because in the past the broadcasters were the same) so a merge of radio and television could be possible. The journal articles do seem to cover them separately. I advocate for keeping them separate because the commercial radio stations aren't involved in television in most cases, a book has more place to cover things than a wikipage and because it is a different medium. Merging to a radio in Belgium article is also possible, but the sources do focus more on Flanders separately.Rolluik (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Belgium is an unusual case in that its media, like many other things there, is bifurcated by language. Because of that, the structure of a "Radio in X" article would be very bifurcated to the point of being two articles, one of which would be this. A Radio in Wallonia article should be the next step. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 07:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to have a Radio in the French Community of Belgium (This also covers Brussels). A Radio in the German-speaking Community of Belgium is also possible but maybe the population is too low to have generated enough sources, in that case a section Media in German-speaking Community of Belgium could suffice. Rolluik (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Pelmear

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

No evidence of notability found. Played in notable series like Dr Who, but only a minor role. He is just a name appearing in lists of actors, but doesn't get further attention in books[60]. No news sources paid significant attention to his death[61]. General Google results are wiki's and fora, no indepth reliable sources there either[62]. Fram (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are people less notable than him who have an article. So, I don't see why this article should be deleted. And besides, it can be improved over time. Spectritus (talk) 9:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Fram (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His role in The Time Warrior is significant, not minor. ~~Merge~~ into a not-yet existing cast section of that serial. Thanks. (https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-guide/the-time-warrior/) -Mushy Yank. 19:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)-->changed to Keep per Wp:Hey. Thanks, RebeccaGreen, for your impressive work.-Mushy Yank. 20:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He played in 4 of the 26 episodes of one season of this long-running series. It's a significant role in that one story arc, it is a minor role in Doctor Who. Fram (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, sure, it's also less important in the universal history of fiction than Rhett Butler and Darth Vader, which in turn are less important than Odysseus and Don Quixote, etc, but that's not really the point.... It's a significant [not minor] role in a notable production and that's why I suggest to Redirect the page there. If other significant ro|es in notable productions are identified, the Redirect can be undone and the page expanded back into a proper article. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 19:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As I said before, there are people less notable than him who have an article. So, there's no reason to delete this one. Spectritus (talk) 8:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment He also appeared in many roles on stage. I'll try to add info about that, and sources from digitised newspapers. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Much appreciated. Spectritus (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm finding nothing but his name in cast listings. The obit is a single sentence. I hoped to find biographical articles related to his 100-year birthday, but didn't. When you search on his name in WP articles he is name-checked under "and others" or "guest appearance". None of this supports notability. Lamona (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a table of stage performances (which I will continue adding to - there's currently a 20 year gap), with quotes in the sources about his performances. I have also started editing the text of the article. He certainly played leading roles in repertory in many cities around England, and received very positive reviews. I have called out some notable performances in which he had leading roles in the article. I'll keep working on it. I believe that he does meet WP:NACTOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that he also must meet WP:BASIC, which means "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources..." Unfortunately, most of the sources that have been added are trivial mentions, such as ...while Darryl Kavann and Donald Pelmear characterized their roles well. Or Beryl Hardy and Donald Pelmear are also good, as mother and son hotel-keepers. As WP:BASIC says: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." It doesn't help us decide notability with this WP:REFBOMBing going on (now over 50 and counting). I know you are trying to be helpful, but what would be helpful would be to make the difficult decision of which roles and which sources actually support notability, and making the article about those. Listing every mention of his name, especially one-line mentions, puts undue burden on those of us trying to determine if this article should stay. What you have here so far, if I am reading this right, are two sources that have a single paragraph each; the rest are quite short. I would like to know if you can point to 2-3 "significant published secondary sources". Lamona (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated, this article is under construction. Yes, it may be possible to delete some roles and sources, but I cannot assess which would be best to delete until I have an overall picture of his 60 year career. No, I have not by any means included every mention of his name, nor every role that he played - there are many more. What you have quoted as WP:NBASIC is actually WP:GNG. WP:NBASIC states that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." He does meet WP:NBASIC as well as WP:NACTOR, as multiple independent sources do combine to demonstrate notability. The reviews of his performances are not trivial. If all the sources were of the quality of the two you have called out, the caveat that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability" might apply - but they are not. There is no requirement in WP policy to point to 2-3 "significant published secondary sources". WP:OVERCITE is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Also, WP:OVERCITE does not apply, as each performance has only 1 or 2 references. It may look excessive because I have included quotes from the sources that are paywalled on the British Newspaper Archive, so that they are accessible to other editors who do not have a subscription. No doubt if I added performances without references, someone would add "Citation needed" tags, or if I did not include quotes, someone would say "we don't know if it's just a cast list". If you find it hard to assess notability while the article is still under construction, please wait. Other editors appear not to have found it difficult. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. That's the 4th bullet point of WP:GNG. "Multiple" means at least more than one. Here in AfD we often ask for 2-3 as a shorthand for talking about a small "multiple." You needn't try to wiki-lawyer your way out of a very simple, basic request that could help us assess this article. What we should be discussing is the content of this article, and I still want to know what exists, even if not yet added to the article, that supports notability. You say: "He does meet WP:NBASIC as well as WP:NACTOR, as multiple independent sources do combine to demonstrate notability." Could you please link or reference those sources here as they are vital to this decision. Lamona (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is currently under construction. Passes WP:NACTOR. Moondragon21 (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 10:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)(Again, sources added by RebeccaGreen are on the page, some including quotes, and asking to have a link on this page is totally unnecessary. Users who wish to read them, should read the page and the accusation of "Wikilawyering" is at best absurd.).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:HEY. Passes NACTOR and sourcing is strong. However, the number and/or length of quotations in the citations could be reduced. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two Autumns in Paris

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

Promo for non notable film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No sign of any reviews. Being screened at minor festivals and winning minor awards does not satisfy NFILM. One of multiple promo pieces for Francisco Villarroel and his creations made by the same spammer. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the reasons you have just said. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Canada, and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Production and screenings received a lot of coverage in Spanish...@Kingsif:, if you have time, could you have a look at this and, maybe, if it's not asking too much, the associated pages (another film, a festival and the actor mentioned above)? Thanks a lot!-Mushy Yank. 07:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the coverage and awards/nominations, a redirect to List of Venezuelan films (listed there in 2020) would seem appropriate, at least. -Mushy Yank. 07:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a decent chance that at least this film is suitable for an article, based on a very quick search, but then looking at the articles all made by quite an obvious COI user, we may be in WP:TNT territory in terms of what content is/should be usable. I can have a better look later but am kinda swamped for a few days. Kingsif (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Having looked in Spanish, most sources are Venezuelan film organisations (Gran Cine, Trasnocho Cultural, government) that kinda just mention its existence. However, there's a few international sources about screenings and festivals, and the cast (Cervantes Institute, La Vanguardia). Small coverage, but RS and more than 'look we made this'. The film also got a wide cinema release in Venezuela - which would be no small feat any time after 2014, but is frankly outstanding that it happened in 2020. (El Estímulo, El Universal). Possibly the best source to start the article afresh with might be this Unión Radio piece (and interview?) about it. I don't think El Carabobeño is generally accepted as RS, but it has an article about the film being adapted from Villarroel's book, itself based on a true story, that could be useful if acceptable. Also to note, most of the awards listed on its IMDb are absolute duds, and as such the (probably quite evident anyway) Venezuelan government propaganda media, just listing off how many global awards this thing got, should be avoided. Kingsif (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the sources added to the article. Nfitz (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UCPH Department of Chemistry

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

Fails WP:GNG. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Denmark. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards keep just because this is such an old department and has the start of what looks to be a verifiable history - I just can't find it because I don't know any Danish and have to rely on Google Translate to find anything useful. If no one else can find information about it (the other departments also pretty heavily rely on primary sources, though they are in general better sourced) then it would probably be best to merge to University of Copenhagen Faculty of Science. Recon rabbit 15:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's tricky, but there are indications that there's enough in histories of Hans Christian Ørsted and in the quincentennial history of the University published in 1978 (and apparently held in the Rigsarkivet) to cover the history of the Chemistry institute specifically. It will need to be carefully teased apart from the history of chemistry at the Technical University of Denmark, which also involved Ørsted and some of which is apparently shared. Uncle G (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Straive

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

Not very notable company and only known due to acquisition news Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vincenzo Soprano

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

Nomination: Notability. Nothing links here. There is no Italian page. He's not even mentioned on the page for Trenitalia. It also doesn't appear that he's still the CEO. It's not clear that this subject warrants an English Wikipedia page. Suggest a Wikidata page should be sufficient for the material currently on the page. ash (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC. The current CEO can be found at Trenitalia. — Maile (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stage School Australia

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

The vast majority in unsourced or primary sourced, so I intended to improve the article but very much struggled to find good secondary sources. The school does not seem to fit notability guidelines. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 02:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Companies, Schools, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The article lacks strong independent sources and relies mostly on primary or promotional content. Doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Without significant secondary coverage, notability isn’t established. Pridemanty (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not a single independent source cited in the article, which appears to be entirely promotional. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not finding much through online searches. Interestingly, there was an Australian Youth Theatre in the 1940s in Sydney. I think it may be necessary to look in books and journals that aren't online for more info on the various branches and names of this organisation. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I closed this as a Delete but a trusted editor requested that I relist so I'm accommodating that request. Please consider their additions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I'm still in the middle of expanding and editing the article and will return to this discussion. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Coleman (soccer)

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

Coleman played three games of professional soccer for a team in the second tier of the American soccer pyramid, does not appeared to have played professionally after that point. Appears to fail WP:NSPORT and WP:SIGCOV. Raskuly (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Oklahoma. Raskuly (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails basic WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and above. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above; unable to find any independent/reliable/secondary sources. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Preetha Ram

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

No independent, secondary sources found about the subject. The article was previously PROD'd and contested back in 2009, so it seems that an AfD is the only course of action available here. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Women. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lemme list some points. The following can be reasons for deletion. - Mike 01:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. The article is based mostly on one source.
2. Don't look at the extended part; it's basically the same information.
3. Doesn't have enough good sources that can be found online.
4. And yes, no independent or secondary sources.
- Mike 01:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Susan (drag queen)

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

Does not meet notability criteria. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. No notability demonstrated in the present sources. Svartner (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Arguably passes WP:CREATIVE because of an international tour. Bearian (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:CREATIVE? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it should be WP:SINGER, criteria 4. Bearian (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe this person is a musician, which is the category that that SNG pertains to. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ENTERTAINER. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don’t believe this person meets ENT, because the two credits they have are to a franchise of RuPaul’s Drag Race and a reunion for that season. The season reunion was just produced and streamed under the name “Bring Back My Girls”, which is an online-only collection of reunions for Drag Race franchises. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Bearian are you arguing for a Keep here? It would be helpful to get a source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if PinkNews is a reliable source, and it's the only source for evidence of a "world tour". That's why I'm hesitant about keeping this. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not a world tour for Susan—it’s a tour entitled “Werq the World”, which books many drag queens, and per PinkNews Susan was booked for only two dates, in Antwerp and Stockholm. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PinkNews is a reliable source, per WP:PINKNEWS, and Werq the World is a notable tour worth mentioning. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smruthi K

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria:

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.

Anybody who checks the first two links, they are YouTube interviews from sources that are listed unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines_on_sources (both Indiaglitz and Behindwoods). The third source is a just a short film link.

Also, she is very low-key, dubbing for films in not the original language such as K.G.F 2 (non Kannada/Hindi version) and Petta (non Tamil version). She only seems to dub in Tamil original versions for Raashii Khanna.

A quick WP:BEFORE yields nothing. DareshMohan (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The subject of this article is not notable, so it doesn't seem like this article can be improved in any way.

WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sahar Hashmi

AfDs for this article:

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

Back at AfD after the first resulted in speedy deletion. Back in the mainspace and while I attempted to clean up (even moved to draft to allow for cleanup but that was objected to) but there is nothing useful to create the page. For NACTOR, a person is not inherently notable for two lead roles - they still need the significant coverage showing such. Here, the references are unreliable, some based on the publication and the rest based on being non-bylined churnalism. CNMall41 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 2 lead (ergo significant) roles in notable series, Zulm and Mann Mast Malang, thus meeting WP:NACTOR that states that actors "may be considered notable if" they had significant roles in notable productions. To pass WP:NACTOR, coverage is only needed to verify the importance of the roles in the notable productions. No notability guideline warrants "inherent notability" on WP: all of them, including WP:GNG mention a "presumption" of notability of some sort (presumed/may/likely, etc). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Raza (actor), an AfD that I link here not for its outcome nor potential disagreements between given users but because it contains an extensive discussion about WP:NACTOR and WP:SNGs in general. In a nutshell: stating that subjects meeting any of the specific notability guidelines about notability "must first" (or "should also") meet GNG is an erroneous (albeit common) interpretation of what the guideline says. Meeting given specific requirements for notability can be considered sufficient, per consensus; that is why such guidelines exist; when the requirements of the applicable guideline are met, it can be agreed upon that the article may be retained. By the same token, those who don’t agree are obviously free to express their views but meeting specific requirements can be considered a good and sufficient reason to retain any page; in other words, in such cases, subjects don't need to also meet the general requirements. Even meeting them does not guarantee "inherently" an article, anyway.-Mushy Yank. 01:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Few things. The first is that although the AfD you linked here shows your contention that NACTOR is met with two main/lead roles, it also shows a divide amongst editors on how to interpret that. Note it closed as No Consensus with the closing admin noting that editors were divided in the assessment of NACTOR. However, the AfDs here and here where you asserted the same resulted in delete. While this does not establish consensus, it does show that editors do not share the same assessment. Note, I am not saying she must meet WP:GNG. I am saying she meets neither. Second, NACTOR is not met with two roles with "coverage is only needed to verify the importance of the roles in the notable productions." In fact, it says "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Here, the sources are junk. They are non-bylined coverage similar to WP:NEWSORGINDIA, churnalism, websites like Celebrity Networth, or are otherwise unreliable. If someone is worthy of notice, you would think they would have more than this type of simple coverage. It would be more significant where they would meet WP:NBASIC. Finally, one of the shows you claim is a notable series, you actually redirected based on notability. You only reverted in March of 2025 to help support your contention in the first AfD. Both shows I think are marginally notable at best as they also contain the same type of unreliable sourcing, although I will not nominate either during this AfD so as not to give the appearance of WP:DISRUPTIVE. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already replied to all this in the other AfD I linked precisely for that purpose, and in the precedent discussion about this actress. See there. -Mushy Yank. 07:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[Repubblica20190805-1] D’Alessandro, Jaime (5 August 2019). "Vita da cacciatore di bachi informatici. "Vi racconto il grande mercato dello spionaggio digitale"". la Repubblica (in Italian). Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[Vice20180425-2] Franceschi‑Bicchierai, Lorenzo (25 April 2018). "Startup Offers $3 Million to Anyone Who Can Hack the iPhone". Vice. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[Vice20190307-3] Cox, Joseph (7 March 2019). "As Phones Get Harder to Hack, Zero Day Vendors Hunt for Router Exploits". Vice. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[TechCrunch20240406-4] Franceschi‑Bicchierai, Lorenzo (6 April 2024). "Price of zero‑day exploits rises as companies harden products against hackers". TechCrunch. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[SCMedia20240409-5] Staff, SC (9 April 2024). "Crowdfense expands exploit acquisition program". SC Media. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[IntOnline20230830-6] "UAE : Abu Dhabi‑based vulnerability researcher Crowdfense undergoes a small revolution". Intelligence Online. 30 August 2023. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[IntOnline20180516-7] "Emerging SIGINT powers seek own cyber‑bounty hunters". Intelligence Online. 16 May 2018. Retrieved 14 April 2025.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]