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 20	April 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Patrick Chiwala

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

Declined prod. All the sources are database or result listings. The only third party source is this book but searching Chiwala there are 5 small mentions and nothing indepth. not even a few lines about Chiwala. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I expanded this article just before it was nominated for deletion. Not all the sources are databases; for example Zambia Sporting Score: A Period of Hits and Misses lists the subject in the context of a few of his performances. Subject went far beyond the typical Olympian stub because he qualified for several international championships (African Games, Commonwealth Games, Olympics) and set a 2:22:45 marathon PB in the 1970s as Zambia's top marathon runner. SIGCOV of him would exist in Zambian physical media from that era as soon as those archives are available to us. --Habst (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Navify to a page mentioning his Olympics and Commonwealth Games. Not even a single full sentence directly on him in the book, which seems to contain a fairly exhaustive almanac of all Zambian international sporting appearances (the context where Chiwala is mentioned, apart from one shared sentence in prose) as well as secondary coverage of the athletes that were more impactful. If Chiwala's performance had actually garnered significant attention we would expect this to be reflected by deeper coverage in this book, but that is not the case. JoelleJay (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Immigration Council

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

Fails WP:NORG. Lack of WP:SIGCOV. Barely even any WP:FLEETING coverage or WP:SECONDARY of its reports or actions. Longhornsg (talk) 22:41, 14 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 Washington, D.C.. Longhornsg (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have sufficient secondary sources in reputable publications. wound theology ◈ 22:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Provide them? I'm seeing two citations of research. Longhornsg (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carson Community Center

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

Community Center that fails WP:NBUILDING and WP:SIGCOV, and has been unsourced since 2008. This article was also PRODed back in 2008, which was withdrawn for an AFD that never happened. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. From what little I've found online it looks to be a non-notable local building. Golem08 (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Newspapers.com seems to draw a blank, which is where I would expect to find any coverage if it existed. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:30, 22 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.

I.I.M.U.N.

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Charlie (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Education, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sourcing in this article is like a flea market: cluttered, uneven, but with real value among the items. Roughly two-thirds of the 33 references are clearly low-quality, promotional, or dead links and should be trimmed per WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. However, 6 to 7 are solid pieces from reliable national sources including The Times of India, The Economic Times, DNA India, Forbes India, and India Today, offering independent coverage that satisfies WP:GNG. This is a clear keep and a strong cleanup candidate under WP:PRESERVE. HerBauhaus (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've cleaned up the sourcing following the AfD relisting, removing poor sources including lifestyle blogs, event aggregators, and self-published material per WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. The article is now anchored in national-level sources such as The Times of India, The Economic Times, DNA India, and India Today, supplemented by a few lighter but still usable references. HerBauhaus (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kala Manickam

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. There are no sources that cover the subject substantially. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Singapore. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not fully added onto the page yet - but there's a lot more sources from local media about her, hence there is certainly a lot more sources to add Aidanic (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - candidates for political office are not automatically notable, although a redirect might be appropriate to the election article. Bearian (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juvenile Liaison Officer

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

Little sources avaliable, no notability. Article is unencyclopedic as well. This article was created in 2006 by a brand new editor with little changes since. GoldRomean (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep (and improve/move to Garda National Youth Diversion Bureau or Garda National Youth Diversion Programme). As noted in the nom, the article at this title is/was something of a disaster. However, I don't think that WP:DYNAMITE is the answer here. In my own WP:BEFORE it seems that the titular subject (a "Garda Juvenile Liaison Officer" or "JLO") acts under the Garda Youth Diversion Programme. (As per this source and this one and here). While the concept of a "JLO" is discussed in several sources (like here or here or here), I'm not sure the role/job/class of Gardaí has independent notability. However, the program of which they are part, the Garda Youth Diversion Programme, possibly is. And so I'd recommend that the article be moved to that title. And updated to cover that programme/bureau. With a small amount of the role of a JLO, within the bureau, covered by sources like this. Failing that, we could merge/redirect some of the text to the Garda Síochána title. And cover it WP:WITHIN that title. Guliolopez (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge I'm not sure it warrant more than a few lines on Garda Síochána. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jacklyn Frank

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

Fails WP:NSUBPOL. A member of a 1,600-population local council with minimal coverage in reliable sources is not notable enough for a standalone article. CROIX^talk 14:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Antigua and Barbuda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searching for Jacklyn or Jackie Frank, I find that she was one of two people who challenged the government of Antigua and Barbuda over the construction of the new airport, which started while residents of the island of Barbuda were evacuated to Antigua during Hurricane Irma. (See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. The challenge went to the Privy Council in London. This is not currently mentioned anywhere - perhaps it could be included in the article Burton–Nibbs International Airport, or in the article on Barbuda#History#Modern history. I am not sure yet if there is sufficient coverage of Jackie Frank to warrant a stand-alone article - I'll keep looking. If not, an ATD could be to redirect or merge to Chairperson of the Barbuda Council (where she is named) or Barbuda People's Movement (where she is not currently named). RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:52, 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!} 23:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Ödman

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

Odman was senior executive and founder of several online gaming companies. None of these companies seem to be notable; in any case, they do not have a Wikipedia article. The references in the article about Odman are mostly publications from his own companies and interviews in online gaming publications. I cannot find enough substantive, independent coverage about him to pass WP:GNG. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Games, and Internet. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Malta, Sweden, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I think there are enough references or notability. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 06:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really seeing any references here that are independent, significant, and establish notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy (healthcare organization)

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

All sources in article by Template:Third-party violations. Cannot find reliable sources otherwise. Roasted (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Religion, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. Roasted (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a major American healthcare system with 40k employees. There are sources, it's just a little hard to google because of its generic name. NPR[7], Kaiser Health[8], Springfield News-Leader[9][10][11][12], KSDK[13], KSMU[14], STLPR[15], Becker's Hospital Review[16][17], St. Louis Post-Dispatch[18], U.S. News & World Report[19] Jahaza (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Margarida Fleming

AfDs for this article:

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

Neutral. As the original author of the article I do not accept suggestions that the article is inaccurate. To the best of my knowledge the complainant has not provided any examples of inaccuracies. Further, there are a large number of citations given. The fact that these sources are freely available rather challenges the complainant's request for privacy. I probably prepared the article after seeing a list of the "Top Ten Most Inspiring Portuguese Women",^[1] which to me does not suggest a lack of notability, although I would agree that the subject, despite the quality of her work, is not in the first rank of Portuguese artists and her inclusion on Wikipedia cannot be considered essential. Roundtheworld (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Top 10 Most Inspiring Portuguese Women". Discover Walks. Retrieved 21 April 2025.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. 22:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Tacyarg (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. 22:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Tacyarg (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 22:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Tacyarg (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Architecture. Netherzone (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Of the fourteen sources currently in the article, which one(s) are not blogs, user-submitted content, sales sites or primary sources? In other words, which are secondary reliable sources that are fully independent from the person? Netherzone (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question 2: OK, I'm confused. The nominator, Roundtheworld, who started this AfD says they are the original author, but are neutral about deletion. However the article history says that the editor, Umdiadepois, nominated the article for deletion according to their user contributions,[20] and they claim to be the the subject of the article, although there is no proof of that. Roundtheworld could you, when you find a moment, please explain what's going on, I'm confused. Thank you, Netherzone (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not start the AFD. I responded to a notification that the page had been started. Umdiadepois had previously made lots of large deletions, which were reverted by others. I am reasonably satisfied that she is the subject of the article. Her first revert stated "Hello, I am the subject of this article. Some of the information is outdated and does not accurately reflect my current trajectory. I would like the article to be simplified, as I prefer to keep my personal and professional information on my official website. I kindly request the removal of excessive details and a more neutral, concise version of the article. Thank you for your time and consideration." Roundtheworld (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining, now I understand. Umdiadepois may well be the subject, however, because this is a BLP, I think there is a procedure that has to occur to prove that they are who they say they are. If I'm not mistaken, they need to file an email ticket with WP:VRT that gets reviewed by a team member and assigned a number. I'm pinging @Star Mississippi for her guidance. (BTW, I have no opinion on Fleming's notability at this time.) Netherzone (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast India International Travel Mart

AfDs for this article:

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

Is clearly WP:PROMO. Little to know sources talking about it. Fails WP:GNG and all of the sources are press releases Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Travel and tourism, India, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, and Tripura. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:An editor had edited a name change on the article and broken the link to this AFD. Ihave restored that and am adding a Findsources for the alternate name here. AllyD (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the inconvenience. I was just looking at the article as someone mentioned it on my talk page. The article title itself is incorrect, but after a Google search, I found several notable sources for the topic, and I have added some of them, including rewriting some parts. Aryan^{Talk} 23:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s still primary sources or passing mentions. Primary sources do not qualify as reliable sources. Press releases and media outlets just repeating the press release do not count. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast India International Tourism Mart: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Kudos to AllyD for fixing the broken AfD link.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mysore–Travancore war

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

The article is built upon clear original synthesis. No historian presents a War where one sided Mysore, Kingdom of France, the Marathas, and the Dutch where the opponents as Travancore supported by East India company and Kochin. What even surprises is as of mentioned here, the victory didn't favour to the Mysore where they both conflicted at Battle of Nedumkotta. Contents could be merged to the Mysorean invasion of Malabar by extending the scope of that article by replacing Malabar by Kerala and removing the result section. This article is clear synthesis of the author. Hionsa (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, India, Karnataka, and Kerala. Hionsa (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Historians do mention this event, check Page number 154–164 , Battle of Nedumkotta wasn't the last conflict between the two as per the sources mentions after this battle, Tipu Sultan invaded Travancore defeated Rama Varma or Dharma Raja , successfully captured Kodungallur, and forced the Raja to surrender Ayicottta and Paravur. This conflict led to the beginning of the Third Anglo-Mysore War Shakakarta (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a single mention of the title? That's not enough, and I can see that the given pages doesn't represent the war as shown in the article. And the your statement about the post-conflicts after Nedumkotta, it's original research mate. Hionsa (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Check the sources which I have cited, they mention the post conflicts after Nedumkotta, [21] refer page number 166–168 also this books doesn't only mention the title but has a coverage of nearly ten pages Shakakarta (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Poorly written, closely paraphrased article and the topic fails WP:GNG, sources nowhere mention a Mysore Travancore war. CharlesWain (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination, sources do not support the notion of a Mysore–Travancore war. There is no significant coverage either. Koshuri ^(グ) 09:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dov Shafrir

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

My WP:BEFORE results in insufficient sources and especially WP:RELIABLESOURCES for this to pass WP:GNG. The mention at best should be cited in another article about Palestinian re-settlement, but this person does not meet GNG for an article unto themself. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Loads of sources, in the scholarshp and news: passes WP:ANYBIO. Senior character in the newly-independent Isreal government: passes WP:NPOL. Cheers, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Easternsahara (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps there's an appropriate redirect or merge target. All the sources added today are not coverage about Shafrir, and there were no sources presented that demonstrate WP:SIGCOV of Shafrir himself to satisfy WP:NBIO. From looking through the sources, these are simply singular, mostly single-line mentions of Shafrir's appointment in 200+ page books. We've deleted based on far more coverage. Obvious WP:GNG fail. Longhornsg (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added two links that provide basic biographical details; per WP:BASIC multiple sources can be combined in lieu of significant coverage. His involvement in the redistribution of Palestinian property is of historical interest and his work is well documented (e.g, in this encyclopedia entry which quotes his report at length. The fact that other deletions proceeded under supposedly analogous circumstances is a non sequitur. Oblivy (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"...trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability" So then it must just then be proven that these are not routine coverage or passing mentions in order for WP:BASIC to qualify. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are discussing him in the context of his project, and coverage of that project was more than trivial. You don't get to stop with "He was appointed to head the X project" if the rest of the paragraph is about X project.
If there was consensus for merge Iand redirect to Israeli land and property laws#Absentees' Property Laws I'd be prepared to support it. I still think this can live happily as a well-documented stub. Oblivy (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that over a Keep. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people). There seems to be no SIGCOV of him. He seems solely known for being the first Israeli Custodian, a role which isn't itself notable enough for an article. Some of his work definitely seems notable for mentions in an article, but presumably they're already included here: Israeli land and property laws -- Bob drobbs (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to presume; you can look at the linked article and see how it's handled. That's why I suggested a merge and redirect. Oblivy (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Having looked at Israel's newspaper archive, it is very well possible that he passes the GNG, yet we do not have much information on him at present. Not even enough specifics for a highly selective merge into a potential merge target that does exist. The fact that Hewiki doesn't carry him does not make it easier filling in the blanks. Once there is more information I may change my opinion. gidonb (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Israeli land and property laws#Absentees' Property Laws. Per nom, there isn't enough WP:SIGCOV in WP:RELIABLESOURCES to justify a standalone article on the subject.--DesiMoore (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus supports that, then I would support the merge to Israeli land and property laws#Absentees' Property Laws as you suggest. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zhao Xinmin

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

Questionable whether there was any WP:SUSTAINED notability here to merit any article. Amigao (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Terrorism. Skynxnex (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Coverage has continued years after his death; this source is from 2020. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After checking a few references they do not seem to verify the contents properly (and are AI generated), the 2002 award is not mentioned by the source. Neither is the HIV thing, in fact the source mentions an entirely different motive (money) which are the first two I checked... it is better to delete it and start over.

Probably notable though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look the worse this gets. The broad strokes are here but almost all the fine details in this article seem to have been hallucinated by AI. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The 2002 award is mentioned by name in the source's headline (" 《感动中国》2002年度人物：赵新民 " - "2002 'Touching China' figure: Zhao Xinmin"), and the beginning of the first paragraph ("颁奖") makes it clear the topic is an award. I agree there seems to be no mention of HIV in the source cited for that claim, but HIV is mentioned in this source cited later in the same paragraph. However, the URLs with ?utm_source=chatgpt.com are a red flag for sure. The subject seems to be notable, but I can see an argument for WP:TNT on the basis that the article appears to be LLM-generated. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG Iban14mxl (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology

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

Non-notable journal published by a predatory publisher that has not been discussed in any capacity by independent sources and is not indexed by any selective databases. There was some previous discussion regarding the journal (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Archive_6#Keep_or_delete_this_journal?) but it has since been delisted from MEDLINE (NCBI) and Index Medicus (MIAR) with little fanfare. -- Recon rabbit 14:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Science. -- Recon rabbit 14:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I debated with myself whether a redirect to Predatory publishing or Beall's list is a reasonable alternative, but I think a K.I.S.S. deletion is simplest. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could only see redirecting being appropriate if American Scientific Publishers was a blue link. List of MDPI academic journals exists after all. -- Recon rabbit 15:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the independent sources (about its predatory nature/delisting) provide the significant depth of coverage needed for WP:GNG notability. WP:ITSUSEFUL to have a page warning us that this is not a high-quality journal but that's not an adequate reason for a keep, and there is no likely redirect target. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's stated here that the journal Ceased publication in 2021, which seems to be accurate based on the fact that their website also has no new articles after December 2021. Nobody (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I don't often use the word "strong" before either keep or delete, but here I strongly feel that this discussion is going in the wrong direction. This journal was included in Scopus from 2001 to 2017. That alone we usually take as sufficient to establish notability. It was also included in the Science Citation Index Expanded from 2002 to 2019. There was an expression of concern that the journal had been guilty of citation stacking in 2017, but apparently they cleaned up their act in the next year (current reference 5). Again, listing in the SCIE of almost the complete run of the journal (discontinued in 2021) is generally taken as sufficient evidence of notability. And then there is MEDLINE in which the complete run of the journal was "selectively included", as well as in its even more selective sub-database Index Medicus. Again, this alone we usually take as evidence of notability. Finally, notability is not temporary, so the fact that the journal was discontinued is immaterial. BTW, as an aside: our article states that the journal "was delisted from Web of Science in the 2019 index,[5] after having received an expression of concern a year earlier." In fact, the expression of concern explicitly states "The Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology did not show evidence of anomalous patterns of citation in 2018 and will not be suppressed. Similar analysis of year-to-date 2019 indicated no continuation of the citation anomalies, so that the journals will not be removed from indexing in Web of Science at this time." --Randykitty (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't certain about the original nomination because of the implication that it was at some point in the past indexed by Index Medicus, but the lack of information on MIAR and the generally negative slant of the article, short as it is, placed me in the position of nominating this for deletion. That and endorsement by other editors. The evidence here is convincing of the "selectively indexed" criteria. I withdraw my personal reasoning for deletion, particularly with the scopus indexing I missed but as there are others that have recommended deletion this won't be a close. -- Recon rabbit 01:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss the strong evidence presented by Randykitty.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Long Burn the Fire

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

Album that fails WP:GNG. No sources beyond profiles from databases and stores. The Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the Seventies review cited in the article only briefly mentions it. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It appears to have had some influence [22], and several mentions in Gbooks above. Also pops up in Spin magazine from 2011 in the link above. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think a few mentions in books are enough to keep this article. To not fail WP:GNG, this article needs significant coverage. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that User:WhoIsCentreLeft rapidly nominated six album articles all created by me for deletion, after I critiqued one of their other nominations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidney Bingos. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see anything wrong with that. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Folks from Mother's Mixer

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

Album that fails WP:GNG. No sources found except profiles from music stores and databases. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that User:WhoIsCentreLeft rapidly nominated six album articles all created by me for deletion, after I critiqued one of their other nominations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidney Bingos. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I created this article a long time ago when the notability requirements for an album article were more lenient than today. I am not voting due to a possible conflict of interest, though if there are no true votes from anyone else, the article should not be soft deleted. Instead the standard procedure is to redirect a deficient album article to the band's page as an alternative to deletion because the title might be a search term by an interested reader. I am unapposed to this outcome if it comes to that. Regardless, beware of deletion nominations based on someone's petty dispute with the article's creator. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information Security Forum

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NORG due to a lack of significant coverage. While the article technically 'survived' AfD previously, that was only due to User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs and not because of the perceived notability of the subject. Let'srun (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Organizations, Technology, and United Kingdom. Let'srun (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are plenty of mentions in Gscholar [23] or [24] second one seems to be about the ORG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the author for the second reference works for the ISF, which would make it not independent. Let'srun (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added sourcing from Infosecurity Magazine, Security Magazine, and a 2013 UK government report, all WP:RS. The UK report identifies the ISF’s Standard of Good Practice for Information Security as “widely used” and “covering the complete spectrum of information security arrangements.” Together these 3 sources provide independent coverage that satisfies WP:ORG. HerBauhaus (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since !voting, I’ve added a new WP:RS from Carnegie Mellon, copyedited for tone, and cleaned up promotional/unsourced content. HerBauhaus (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I evaluated every source in the article and in the discussion, and we do not have a WP:GNG pass, much less a WP:NORG pass. See table below:

Source assessment table prepared by User:Dclemens1971
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167404806000563			WP:TRIVIALMENTION	✘ No
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1742684706704839	The author is a consultant for ISF			✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20141018220906/https://www.securityforum.org/tools/sogp/	This book is published by the organization	~	~	✘ No
https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/isf-maps-nists-cybersecurity/	A WP:TRADES publication; independence for these sources is questionable			? Unknown
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7cead540f0b6629523c97f/bis-13-1294-uk-cyber-security-standards-research-report.pdf			Trivial mentions in tables on information security frameworks	✘ No
https://insights.sei.cmu.edu/documents/451/2013_019_001_299133.pdf				✔ Yes
https://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/92688-information-security-forum-explores-the-risks-and-challenges-of-open-source-software	Reprint of a press release from the subject (see here)	~	~	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20141018222734/https://www.securityforum.org/events/isf-annual-world-congress/, https://web.archive.org/web/20141018220958/https://www.securityforum.org/membership/isflive/	ISF's own website	~	~	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I started looking into ISF, I hadn’t expected it to hold up quite so well internationally, but it appears to stand alongside some of the most widely recognized frameworks. I understand why the UK government report might have looked like a passing mention at first glance, but on closer review, it is more substantial. The 2013 BIS report compares 9 major cybersecurity standards including ISO/IEC 27001, PCI DSS, and Germany’s BSI and gives ISF 2 full pages of favourable and independent analysis (pp. 95–96), with strong marks in the comparison matrix on p. 20. Combined with the Carnegie Mellon SEI source, which is already accepted as a reliable reference, I believe this is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Infosecurity Magazine and Security Magazine provide some lighter additional support. I’ve also trimmed promotional content that was a very valid concern earlier. HerBauhaus (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as a mention in a single line each in data matrix tables on pages 20, 51, 65 and 83. Those are definitionally trivial. It gets a full-page mention on page 95, but the material on that page is entirely quotes from ISF publications and thus not independent WP:SIGCOV. Finally, GNG is not the applicable guideline. WP:NORG is. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss Dclemens1971's comprehensive source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10Web

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

Entirely promotional and fails WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Delaware. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this discussion. I hear the concerns, but I’d like to offer a different perspective.

I’ve been part of the Wikimedia movement for a decade, with thousands of contributions across languages. Just like you, I care deeply about Wikipedia’s values and policies, especially NORG policies.

That said, I don’t think it’s fair to label the article as “entirely promotional” just because it describes what the company does. It sticks to factual info (founding, products, notable partnerships) and cites independent sources like TechCrunch, TechRadar, and Business Insider. If there are sections that feel too marketing-like, I’m all for improving them, but deletion seems like an extreme first step.

Happy to collaborate on making the article stronger if that’s the direction we want to go.

Thanks. ShahenWasHere (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10 (Ginger album)

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

Non-notable album. Not a single in-depth source was found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that User:WhoIsCentreLeft rapidly nominated six album articles all created by me for deletion, after I critiqued one of their other nominations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidney Bingos. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I created this article a long time ago when the notability requirements for an album article were more lenient than today. I am not voting due to a possible conflict of interest, though if there are no true votes from anyone else, the article should not be soft deleted. Instead the standard procedure is to redirect a deficient album article to the band's page as an alternative to deletion because the title might be a search term by an interested reader. I am unapposed to this outcome if it comes to that. Regardless, beware of deletion nominations based on someone's petty dispute with the article's creator. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rancho San Pedro Locos

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

Non-notable gang that fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. This is my own article, but then I realized that there is a lack of SIGCOV, many of the articles of this gang are mere trivial mention or unreliable sources, including the 2011 gang injuction. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and California. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Powtoon

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

Through a web search, it doesn't appear that this is a notable company. I've found some web articles [25][26][27], but with a quick read, I'm concerned about significant coverage (i.e., commentary, analysis, etc.) of the company's services within those sources, per WP:CORPDEPTH. Best, Bridget (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, Internet, Software, and United Kingdom. Bridget (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads like an advertisement or product description rather than an article, which is not acceptable in Wikipedia's standards. In addition, there are just three references; one by the company's own page, an article in a technologic publication and a product review. These are not enough to consider the company to be notable. Just to be sure, I searched for more inependent sources on the company to possibly add later on, and found almost nothing beyond brief mentions. NeoGaze (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think there's SIGCOV of the company, but I found several sources about the product: [28], [29], [30], [31]. I'm not entirely sure how to resolve that. Anerdw (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The first link Anerdw is an entire book evaluating the subject pedagogically and without any apparent COI. The other links Anerdw provides aren't that crazy notable, but also do very much offer significant coverage. The second link nom (Bridget) provides is a long PCMag review, and it does provide analysis (e.g. was disheartened not to have access to snapping guides for centering and aligning); I doubt nom's interpretation of CorpDepth anyways: Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product. Even without analysis, description would be enough under the "or". To me, CorpDepth is just something that excludes e.g. "articles" whose only independent content is routine stuff like "Company got $1 billion in founding round B, 14% of which was from famed Corpo C. Additionally, 43% of this contribution was from Corpo D, while 18% was from famed VC...." etc. Any coverage that 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 should qualify for the SigCov criteria. In my experience, the precedent at AfD is that tech publications and product reviews are not disqualified form notability considerations, and such is also the opinion of the oft-cited essay WP:NSOFTWARE. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Svend Ringsted

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

Sportsman that fails WP:GNG. No sources beyond profiles. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Denmark. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhoIsCentreLeft: Where do you look for sources in all your nominations of historical athletes for deletion? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Google search WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search isn't going to be sufficient for topics like these where everything is going to be in newspaper archives or books... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some mentions in Gbooks, but they seem to be about anyone with this name [32]. I don't see anything else for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ran the name through Project Runeberg, can only find a civil engineer [33]. Oaktree b (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oaktree b: Coverage would be in Danish newspapers. The top archive is biblioteket, but most of it is paywalled. We do know though almost certainly that when he died, he was covered in many newspapers including Berlingske, the Danish paper of record (the site lets you search, and searching his name "Svend Ringsted", many of the top results are from right after he died, which basically guarantees that it is of him). I also located a Facebook post that gives him an in-depth biography and describes him as being one of the best Danish footballers at the time; while Facebook, they include newspaper illustrations of him and their descriptions seem to indicate its highly likely he was covered significantly as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His club career is missing, why do you think he was selected for the national team? Because he was a good player. He won the 1918/19 and 1920/21 with Akademisk Boldklub. Clearly WP:BEFORE not done. Govvy (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeanieFan11, while I don't read Danish, they present compelling evidence that coverage does exist in that language which would establish notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Hounsfield

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

Footballer that fails WP:GNG. No sources found except profiles from databases. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Likely WP:OFFLINESOURCES. Just because it's a stub doesn't mean he might not be notable. Your reasoning is floored for way before pre-internet content. Govvy (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He received some coverage at his death, e.g. this and this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saints on animal and plant life

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

Focus on primary sources, no indication these overlapping topics are talked about independently in secondary / third-party sources. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Would make for an incredible doctoral thesis-turned-monograph. I don't know if there's an encyclopedic subject here, but if there were, this is definitely a BLOWITUP on NOR and PRIMARY grounds. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Such obviously poor articles like this are what WP:PROD are for, I would certainly hope no one objects to deletion of whatever this is supposed to be. Reywas92^Talk 02:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There actually probably could be some sort of article on something related to this topic (see, for instance the book Saints and Animals in the Middle Ages, but not in this form. We also already have Plants in Christian iconography and Animals in Christian art. The combination as treated in this article doesn't really make sense, and doesn't seem to be used in scholarship. Agree it is time to nuke this article. Delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ymer Abili

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

Subject isn't notable other than the coverage he received for signing with Melbourne City. I think that this is a instance of WP:BLP1E and WP:TOOSOON. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Australia. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I fully agree with the BLP1E, but I think that the subject also exhibits high potential for notability in the (somewhat) near future given his age. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! However, this is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. If/once the subject receives more coverage, an article about the subject would be justified. However, it's too early as of right now, and so deletion would be the best course of option. The article can be easily undeleted in the future. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly has enough coverage, see e.g. SMH/The Roar etc. Giant Snowman 12:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Hitzeman

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this American soccer player. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Colorado, and South Carolina. JTtheOG (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only able to find database and primary sources. Per the declined PROD, no objection to a redirect, but it is worth noting that he played for other teams. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard van den Bergh

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

Another WP:LUGSTUBS moved back into mainspace but without any qualifying WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:NSPORT. I didn't find any more in my BEFORE search (a similarly named but different person in Suriname appears more often). Don't see an obvious redirect here but open to that alternative. If sufficient coverage is found please ping me and I am happy to withdraw. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (selectively) into Solko van den Bergh, his father, where Gerard is missing entirely. It would be a good ATD and would strengthen the target. gidonb (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Beckett (diver)

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

This WP:LUGSTUBS entry has been returned to mainspace but still does not appear to pass WP:NSPORT for lack of WP:SIGCOV. Nothing qualifying comes up in a BEFORE search (including in the British Newspaper Archive). Since it was only recently returned to article space, I'm not WP:BLARing it, but I think a redirect to Great Britain at the 1908 Summer Olympics would make sense here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Law and Mr. Lee

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

This is not a film, but a TV pilot (for CBS) that was filmed and not picked up - an extremely common occurrence in TV. It never aired and it never will, despite this implying it did in 2003. Coverage is routine for pilot production. DoubleCross (‡) 17:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Film, and Television. DoubleCross (‡) 17:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has no claim of significance, and I can’t find any source talking about this pilot, besides IMDB (not reliable) and some random blog. Given the extremely short article and utter lack of coverage, it doesn’t seem like there’s much to write about it. ApexParagon (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable television pilot, certainly not a film. Nathannah • 📮 18:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some confirmation [34] but it's purely fan sites or imdb listings. This is non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Danny_Glover_filmography#Television. If there was confirmation it had aired or otherwise received a release it could redirect to List of American films of 2003, but we don't have that so filmography it is. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kevin Rodney Sullivan: (Director). Notable crew and extremely notable cast so that this the most standard alternative to deletion for not so notable films/series when the director has a page. Opposed to deletion. (added one source and the presence of Rosanna Arquette in the cast) -Mushy Yank. 23:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 23:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review the changes made and to explore the ATDs suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Student World Impact Film Festival

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

I have strong belief that this subject does not meet the notability criteria mentioned in WP:GNG or WP:NGO. This article relies excessively on the use of primary sources, and when searched up, I can only see some reliable/secondary sources, and even then they are not independent of the subject (e.g interviews with the founder). WormEater13 (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Organizations, and New Jersey. WormEater13 (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't know if this can help but I found some sources : yorku, gonzaga, the movie buff, troy today, connecticut college, some interviews including one on WBGO radio Prudential Emerging Visionaries winner Mark Leschinsky of Mahwah, NJ is changing the youth film festival landscape, northjersey, as well as a few mentions including one for the Diana Awards people.com, new jersey business. Regards, 2A01:CB05:871B:2C00:11B9:7740:BB9B:E8E (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source eval for the new sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fishbone 101: Nuttasaurusmeg Fossil Fuelin' the Fonkay

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

Album that fails WP:GNG. No in-depth sources found expect profiles and 1 sentence mentions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that User:WhoIsCentreLeft rapidly nominated six album articles all created by me for deletion, after I critiqued one of their other nominations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidney Bingos. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe that this article could fit WP:NALBUM. Although, I would be open to hearing different perspectives from others.

WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ZX Touch

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

The sources are two links to the brand's website and two YouTube videos. I couldn't find any other sources through a WP:BEFORE that demonstrate this product's notability. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As noted, two of the refs link to the company website, and the other two are videos on YouTube which appear to be reviews of the topic. When searching the subject, most of the links that appear are on shopping sites such as eBay and Amazon, and there doesn’t appear to be any real significant coverage of the subject on websites not affiliated with the subject. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 05:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Products, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of ZX Spectrum clones. One good reference in Retro Gamer (paywalled [35] or [36]), and one where I'm unsure of reliability: [37], and I think we have enough for a mention. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per A412. Retro Gamer reference is sufficient for inclusion. Pavlor (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per A 412. Both Time Extension and Retro Gamer are reliable per WP:VG/RS. --Mika1h (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created the page. It was reviewed in PC Pro, Retro Gamer and Crash magazines. It's a proper boxed manufactured product. It served as continued reading from the ZX Spectrum Vega+ article. The mag reviews mention Vega+ (notorious product). Happy if you think it belongs elsewhere but I'm unsure if it's defined as an actual clone (a "copy"), as per merging it to the ZX Spectrum clones page mentioned above. Isn't clone defined as around the same hardware? I am familiar with N-Go and it's a clone of the ZX Spectrum Next machine, for instance. Revolt (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide references to those sources such that they can be evaluated? The question being evaluated is one of notability.

~ A412 ^talk! 15:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pretty near to merge, but would like to see Revolt's probable references they mentioned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 San Diego earthquake

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

No indication of notability or damage in the article. Luckily it seems to have been unimpactful so an article isn't needed. The elephants are oddly the subject of the most coverage but in that case should be on San Diego Zoo or some variant; the earthquake itself is not notable. Departure– (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a list somewhere? Surely we list the quakes. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merging currently doesn't appear possible. List of earthquakes in 2025 requires earthquakes to be over 6.0 magnitude; List of earthquakes in California has a "notable earthquakes" section this would likely fail; same for List of earthquakes in the United States. Departure– (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:SIGCOV. Not significant enough to merit a single article, most cases focuses on the San Diego Zoo elephants, not the quake's impact in the rest of Southern California. This isn't "2025 San Diego Zoo elephant alert circle incident". ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana Olympic Association

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

Fails GNG; there are little sources directly about this article, especially reliable. What little info already here is poorly cited. GoldRomean (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Olympics, and Haryana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gabor sisters

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

Redundant WP:CONTENTFORK. All three sisters already have rich articles, at Zsa Zsa Gabor, Eva Gabor, and Magda Gabor. Having a separate page about them collectively serves no encyclopedic purpose and is highly aberrant. "Gabor sisters" is not a band/troupe of any sort – i.e. it is not like The Jackson 5 or even like Marx Brothers. It's simply a description of incidental familial relationship. We do sometimes have family articles, like Barrymore family, but not for just some siblings, versus something more dynastic. Gabor sisters should exist as a page, for navigational purposes, but simply as a WP:Disambiguation page with three bullet-list items in it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Theatre, United States of America, Hungary, Popular culture, Actors and filmmakers, and Women. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Best, --Discographer (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination rationale as an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. jolielover♥talk 18:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The table about their appearances together makes sense and a dedicated page is not shocking precisely per the guideline about content forks (not all of them are bad and repeating content in a different format is Ok) -Mushy Yank. 20:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the nominator is not arguing for deletion but for a disamb or a WP:SETINDEX -Mushy Yank. 20:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can take Mushy Yank's !vote as "keep it as-is". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or not. -Mushy Yank. 08:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of appearances-together information in the nominated, erstwhile article is information that can be merged into the separate articles, e.g. as a sentence stating appearances together or as a column or footnote in filmography tables. It is not a defensible rationale to keep an entire content-fork page, especially because the information's format can be given in any way in the separate articles, and nothing about the C-fork page's formatting is particular to it (that is, it is not a "list of" article or other special type that calls for a particular format). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The whole table? In WHICH article? In the three? Not a very elegant solution!!! In a FOOTNOTE?? Even worse. It is not a defensible rationale to keep an entire content-fork page, especially because the information's format can be given in any way in the separate articles. Yes. It. Is. Just read the guideline you yourself cite in your rationale [which clearly states "Gabor sisters should exist as a page, for navigational purposes, but simply as a WP:Disambiguation page with three bullet-list items in it. by the way (Emphasis mine)] To save you the trouble of reading it, I'll cite it for you:
Content forks that are different page types covering the same subject are acceptable. Articles are not the only type of page on Wikipedia that cover subjects. Other subject-based page types include outlines, navigation footer templates, navigation sidebar templates, categories, portals, glossaries, indexes, lists, etc. Each type is designed to provide particular benefits. However, they, including corresponding articles, should not contradict each other, and any contradictory statements should be corrected or removed.
My !vote is clearly guideline-based and takes into account what you as nominator are saying. So that your comments on my !vote do not strike me as accurate nor consistant. -Mushy Yank. 09:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless Mushy Yank wants to turn this into a family article like Terry family or Barrymore family. If not, little would be lost by deleting this now, as the family members' articles will remain there with all the content and sources in them already. The table of joint appearances could go in one of their articles if no family article is made. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Mitford family practically is an article on the six Mitford sisters. The family background takes up all of two paragraphs, and the article probably would be titled "Mitford sisters" were there not also one brother, who only gets a bullet point. A group of sisters doesn't have to be a "band/troupe" to be notable. Ham II (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Thank you very much. -Mushy Yank. 09:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong High End Audio Visual Show

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

All sources in article are Template:Third-party violations. Sources I found online seem to be run-of-the-mill reporting, and don’t say anything noteworthy about this event. Roasted (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Asia. Roasted (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Lee, O-lee 李奧李 (2011-08-09). Lau, Tat-yan 劉達仁 (ed.). "率先預告新一代 3D 投影機啟動！下半年影音話題 2011香港高級視聽展" [First Look: New Generation 3D Projector Launch! Second Half's Hot AV Topic – 2011 Hong Kong High-End Audio-Visual Show]. PC Market [zh] (in Chinese). pp. G86 – G89.
  The review notes: "一年一度的《香港高級視聽展》上週閉幕，今年的視聽展人流也比往年多，開放到關門時間人流都保持著一定的水平，現場內也顯得十分熱鬧，同時今年在場內開始見到一些非影音玩家，反而是一些一般大眾；同時今年內展示的新產品亦包羅有半年，率先向下圖！"
  From Google Translate: "The annual "Hong Kong Advanced Audiovisual Exhibition" closed last week. This year's audiovisual exhibition had more visitors than in previous years. The flow of people remained at a certain level from opening to closing time, and the scene was very lively. At the same time, this year, some non-audio and video players began to be seen in the venue, but rather some general public; at the same time, the new products displayed this year also covered half a year, first shown in the picture below!"
2. "漸見平民化 2010香港高級視聽展" [Gradually Becoming More Mainstream: 2010 Hong Kong High-End Audio-Visual Show]. PC Market [zh] (in Chinese). 2010-08-10. p. M16–M17.
  The review notes: "每年一度的影音界盛事《香港高級視聽展》今年依舊於灣仔會展舉行，為期三日的《2010香港高級視聽展》可謂天公做美，並沒有出現往年橫風橫雨的惡劣天氣，而且今年基於3D畫面技術的崛起，所以在會場中都明顯比家用音樂還見到了一些新品牌也看到了一些新唱片。"
  From Google Translate: "The annual audio-visual industry event, the "Hong Kong Advanced Audiovisual Show", was held again this year at the Wan Chai Convention and Exhibition Centre. The three-day "2010 Hong Kong Advanced Audiovisual Show" was blessed by good weather, without the severe wind and rain of previous years. In addition, due to the rise of 3D image technology this year, there were obviously more new brands and new records seen in the venue than at home music venues."
3. Lau, Miu-yin 劉妙賢 (2010-07-27). "香港高級視聽展" [Hong Kong High-end Audiovisual Exhibition]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). p. P40.
  The article notes: "音響發燒友視8月初舉行的「香港高級視聽展」為影音界盛事，皆因他們對音色吹毛求疵的追求能在展會上得到滿足。展會除了架設二十二間「發燒房」之外，仍有十個特大展區、音樂軟體區、平面螢幕電視區，以及音響器材、線材及附件區，可謂雲集了世界頂級影音電子器材。現場除了可見價值連城的音響器材示範、恍如藝術品一般的黑膠播放系統、比電影院更豪華的全高清藍光家庭影院系統之外，還有最高質素香港高清數碼廣播示範，而展覽期間每天都有著名歌手和樂迷見面。"
  From Google Translate: "Audiophiles regard the "Hong Kong Advanced Audiovisual Exhibition" held in early August as a major event in the audio-visual industry because their meticulous pursuit of sound quality can be satisfied at the exhibition. In addition to the 22 "audiophile rooms", the exhibition also has 10 extra-large exhibition areas, a music software area, a flat-screen TV area, and an audio equipment, cable and accessories area, which can be said to be a gathering of the world's top audio and video electronic equipment. In addition to demonstrations of priceless audio equipment, a vinyl playback system that looks like a work of art, and a full HD Blu-ray home theater system that is more luxurious than a movie theater, there is also a demonstration of the highest quality Hong Kong HD digital broadcasting. During the exhibition, famous singers will meet with music fans every day."
4. "香港高級視聽展親身體驗過百萬元音響" [Hong Kong High-End Audio-Visual Show: Personal Experience with Million-Dollar Audio Equipment]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2022-08-03. Archived from the original on 2025-04-22. Retrieved 2025-04-22.
  The article notes: "本地影音發燒友，每年最期待8月的來臨，事關一年一度的香港高級視聽展在這段期間舉行。展覽會上雲集全球各地高級視聽品牌產品，諸如坐地喇叭、黑膠唱盤、前後級擴音機、膽機石機、數碼解碼器、音響線材、投影機、高質素黑膠唱片及CD等，部分器材身價更過百萬元，最難能可貴是能夠近距離體驗最新視聽產品，發燒友怎可錯過？"
  From Google Translate: "Local audio and video enthusiasts look forward to the arrival of August every year because the annual Hong Kong Advanced Audiovisual Exhibition is held during this period. The exhibition gathers high-end audio-visual brand products from all over the world, such as floor-standing speakers, vinyl turntables, pre- and post-amplifiers, tube amplifiers, transistor amplifiers, digital decoders, audio cables, projectors, high-quality vinyl records and CDs, etc. Some of the equipment is worth more than one million dollars. The most valuable thing is that you can experience the latest audio-visual products up close. How can audiophiles miss it?"
5. Chu, Yuet-ying 朱悅瀅 (2019-08-11). 展商：內地客劇減 "高級視聽展閉幕　展商：內地客劇減" [High-End AV Show Closes. Exhibitors: Sharp Drop in Mainland Visitors]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from 展商：內地客劇減 the original on 2025-04-22. Retrieved 2025-04-22.
  The article notes: "香港高級視聽展2019今日閉幕，多個展商表示，今年人流下跌兩至五成。"
  From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Advanced Audiovisual Exhibition 2019 closed today. Many exhibitors stated that the number of visitors this year has dropped by 20% to 50%."
6. Chung, Sai-kit 鍾世傑 (2024-08-09). "AVShow直擊｜香港高級視聽展2024．耳機/播放器…9個必行攤位推薦" [AV Show Spotlight｜Hong Kong High-End Audio-Visual Show 2024: 9 Must-Visit Booths for Headphones & Players]. HK01 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-04-22. Retrieved 2025-04-22.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Hong Kong High End Audio & Visual Show (traditional Chinese: 香港高級視聽展; simplified Chinese: 香港高级视听展) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Ball Gardens

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

The article is quite incorrect; the last time it was even vaguely correct was WikiWikiWayne's version of from 19:43, 10 February 2018; the sources listed in the current version are either unavailable or just don't say what the article says; quite certainly the arcade started before 1973, since I was playing there in 1971; and really, it has no encyclopedic significance as it stands. With great regrets, having spent far too much of my college years there, and just having included it in my autobiographical blog... --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Travel and tourism, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough coverage.--Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Central Arizona Valley Institute of Technology

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

Joint educational district that fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. All I could find was either passing mentions or sources linked to the district. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joint technological education district as article creator. There is not enough SIGCOV. There is a need to bolster that article, but the concept is notable, and there is at least a redirect to list ATD. A lot of the smaller JTEDs (though not some of the ones covering metro Phoenix like EVIT or the Pima County one) probably fail the GNG too. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 16:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I think the JTEDs for the smaller Arizona counties should be merited to merge as an ATD. Though I do not oppose merging all of them into the Joint technological education district. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qatari involvement in higher education in the United States

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North America-related deletion discussions. Manyyassin (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Manyyassin (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of independent reliable sources throughout this article, I argue that the majority of this article falls under Wikipedia:NOTADVOCACY. Wikipedia should not amplify reports (such as the ISGAP reports and the NCRI report) whose only evidence is an established correlation and not causation. Citing subsequent reporting by the media that further dramatizes the conclusions made by these reports certainly does not help the factual accuracy of this page. Furthermore, there are many statements in this article about critics "speculating", showing that this article is not seeking to provide facts behind this matter, but is simply repeating the speculations of a thinktank. An encyclopedia is not the place to do this.

Overall, the article relies on the speculation of critics and thinktanks and lends undue weight to their reports whose only evidence is flimsy correlative studies. Manyyassin (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An obvious COATRACK ESSAY that overwhelmingly deals with one issue and nothing else; it's one thing if this article talks about many effects, positive or negative, but this is just too much about one topic that does not feature many neutral sources. Nathannah • 📮 16:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG with sources like [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]. A rename to something like "Foreign donations..." might be appropriate, since Qatar is the largest donor but other countries such as Saudi Arabia and China are also involved. The ISGAP/NCRI reports have been mentioned in reliable sources, so claiming that "Wikipedia should not amplify" them is puzzling. Also puzzling is the claim that the page "overwhelmingly deals with one issue" - yes, that is what a single Wikipedia page is expected to do. Other complaints about "undue weight" and "speculation" are content disputes about what should be in the article, not about whether it should exist. Astaire (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify - I agree that this article meets WP:GNG. My contention is that I do not believe this is encyclopedic content. The central claim of the article is that Qatar is somehow causing antisemitism at American universities. There is no mechanism for this proposed, and the burden of proof is not met by the article's content or sources. This is unencyclopedic content matching the description in WP:NOTADV and its deletion would fall under WP:DEL-REASON #7. Manyyassin (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anywhere in the article where the claim "Qatar is funding antisemitism" is being made in wikivoice. Where present in the article, this claim is always properly attributed to critics (although the sentence This biased approach highlights positive aspects of Islam while sidelining balanced discussions about other religions, particularly Judaism. should be rewritten to make it clear that this is the Lawfare Project's opinion).

If there are others who argue against these critics in reliable sources, then they should be included as per WP:DUE. Otherwise, since you agree that this topic meets GNG, this discussion is better suited for a place like WP:NPOVN. The article may need some reworking to put more emphasis on the facts and less emphasis on speculation, but it should not be deleted. Astaire (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The references no. 12 - 16 mentioned at Qatari involvement in higher education in the United States#References easily confirm that notability exists. Shankargb (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing it's not notable, but the balance on this article is so overtly against the issue that there is no opposing side and we require neutrality and balance. Nathannah • 📮 23:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a coatrack. Most of the sources appear to be either opinion pieces or from biased sources. I think an article can be written on the subject but it is not encyclopedic in its current form. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suman Shringi

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

Mayors may be notable, if they got substantial coverage in secondary sources other than some routine media coverage. This subject lacks SIGCOV in secondary sources and thus fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. TheSlumPanda (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Freeman (Mormon)

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

Fails WP:NBIO. This person does not appear to be notable except in connection with the 1978 Revelation on Priesthood and the content of this article should therefore be merged into that one. Jbt89 (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Discrimination, and Latter Day Saints. Jbt89 (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Colorado, Hawaii, North Carolina, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep ~~as well as being an elder he served for a time as a LDS bishop and we usually keep articles about bishops of major religions.~~ The article includes references/ notes to reliable newspaper coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that LDS bishops are not the same level of hierarchy in most other christian denominations like catholicism. They are more analogous to priests. I am neutral about this page otherwise.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:20, 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!} 22:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet WP:GNG to me due to the sources around him. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one incident. As Anonrfjwhuikdzz pointed out, bishop in the LDS Church is equivalent to a priest or pastor in most churches. Bearian (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Table football (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary dab page. Nothing listed in this page with "Table football". Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing ambiguous about this list of related variations on a concept. BD2412 T 01:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda keep Seems useful enough to me. Govvy (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable list of games that can be referred to as "table football." Frank Anchor 14:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Govvy, seems sensible and useful. Giant Snowman 17:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is reasonable that someone could refer to any of these as table football. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a useful disambig. There's also Table football. -- mikeblas (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only Penny football claims it's also referred to as table football, but the closest source doesn't support that. These entries should all go into Table football#See also. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Touch Pad

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only two references on this page (one of it's release and one of its discontinuation), and all I can find on Google are more outlets reporting on it's release. Madeline1805 (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arts Council~Haliburton Highlands

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

Arts council that fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. A BEFORE search, I could not find any other sources that weren't liked to the organization or a brief, trivial mention, it has got some local news coverage, but I'm not sure if that can cement notability. Not to mention almost the entire article's tone is promotional. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Arts Council- Haliburton Highlands has received independent + detailed in local news at the very least [49][50]. The events they put on in the region have also received non-trivial coverage [51]. They received direct support from the Canadian government to start an ongoing symposium on performing arts in rural communities [52]. News about the organization has been presented in the Toronto Star as well [53] .This coverage spans at least a decade, so it's not a small burst. Between the primary source of its website and local coverage that is sometimes included in major Canadian newspapers, it seems like the council is notable + provides a significant amount of arts programming in the Haliburton region. I vote to keep though I agree the article should be updated.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply sources 1,2,3 and 5 come up with 404 pages, are they availble on the Wayback Machine? ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I malformatted the links. The links are fixed and the pages are still live. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Organizations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is more of a promotion for the orgnaization than anything else. Was created by a single pupose editor in 2009 with not much editing from any other editor since. Probably COI issue. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - The original author itself was banned in 2009 for being an advertising account, something seems fishy here. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A lot of the article text concerns the history of arts initiatives in the area prior to the formation of this Arts Council: such content probably belongs in Haliburton_County#Arts_and_culture (suitably referenced, though). That leads to a wider suggestion that a merge and redirect may be a possibility? AllyD (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with this outcome. There is probably enough coverage available to make a standalone page about the arts in the Haliburton area if the section in Haliburton County becomes too lengthy. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - although I'm starting to get on the fence of notability, the article does have a pretty large COI and PROMO issue. Maybe the article should be WP:TNT? ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 15:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources provided in this discussion - particularly the Toronto Star article - confirm notability. The content itself should be improved - but that's a different discussion. Nfitz (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Parliamentarians for Israel

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

FLAG PAGE FOR DELETION.

Nothing relevant on this page. Info is already contained in the wiki pages of individual members.

It is very short as a wiki article and contains next to no pertinent information.

Most MPs listed no longer sit in commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchMonth (talk • contribs) 15:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I found a number of good sources from just a google search of the group’s name in quotes. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think this parliamentary group exists anymore, seems to have been replaced by the Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group. I do find plenty of very old coverage about the Liberal Parliamentarians for Israel, but it's not specifically discussing the group, rather mentioning the group in the context of other events. MediaKyle (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify‎. There is consensus against a retention in mainspace, and a difference in opinion on whether there is a route to notability. Draftspace will allow that to be resolved one way or another. Star Mississippi 01:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Arul Carasala

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

This article fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. The sources are very weak and do not prove that this killing is notable enough to have significant impact on the world. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, United States of America, and Kansas. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This event is still under investigation, and new details might emerge. I wouldn't immediately jump to deletion. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 11:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LunaEclipse, WP:CRYSTAL. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 12:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading Beans, ??? My intention was to draftify the article and wait for new info to come out, and not add speculation to articles. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 15:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Some parts read like you were expecting some more coverage to come in the future. I should have kept my opinion to myself. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Eclipse. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the assassination of a working priest is notable. Period. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sayeth which policy? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:N, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL There's no article for Arul Carasala, so I don't see how their death/killing is notable. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 16:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite often articles for killings are notable without the need of a separate biography article. Whether a previous biography exists is irrelevant here. MarioGom (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Eclipse, it could potentially meet notability requirements if more details are revealed, however in its current form it is not notable.

Madeline1805 (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Slide (FBG Duck song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Affiliated with artist article deleted after nomination which was recreated. DBrown SPS (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources present in the article already establish notability. The song is discussed individually in e.g. the Pitchfork reference, so this shouldn't be redirected. Stockhausenfan (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not even gonna principate in this discussion because its an obivous Keep Imao. Momentoftrue (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Obivous Keep Imao" is not a policy and guidelines based argument, and will be discarded as such. If you don't wish to participate in this AfD, there is no need to come here and inform us of your wishes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Clout

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

Lacks WP:MUSICBIO and WP:RELIABILITY. Also affiliated with article recreated third time following deletion by nomination. DBrown SPS (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination rests on flawed reasoning and misapplied policies. Big Clout is a released studio album, distributed by Columbia Records, a major label already a solid claim to notability per WP:NALBUM Criterion 1.

Coverage includes a contemporaneous album review from HotNewHipHop, a site consistently accepted in similar music AfDs. In addition, DailyLoud and RateYourMusic supporting reception and while not all these sites are perfect individually, collectively they contribute to WP:GNG by showing ongoing attention and critique of the album.

The deletion rationale claims "reliability" and "affiliation with a previously deleted article," but this doesn't hold. FBG Duck's article was not deleted, but kept after discussion, which invalidates arguments based solely on association. Even if it had been deleted, notability is not inherited but it's also not denied based on supposed guilt-by-association. That logic is unsound.

Finally, per WP:NOTCLEANUP, AfD is not the place for challenging article quality or formatting. If reliability or sourcing were truly the issue, the proper action would be tagging or improving, not deletion. Momentoftrue (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vissa

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

Nominating for deletion as the subject appears to fail WP:GNG. The article relies on references from industry portals Indiantelevision.com and idlebrain.com. These types of situational sources (WP:SIRS) generally do not provide the multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources required by GNG. A WP:BEFORE search confirmed the lack of adequate additional sourcing needed to establish notability. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Andhra Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Reconstruction Front

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

not notable, no sources, this is a dictionary entry, not a wikipedia article Yilku1 (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Haiti. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This article would benefit from an expansion, but in regard to notability specifically, it had coverage in local press because it was the product of a failed coup and won seats in the 2006 Haitian general election. Example source in French. Yue🌙 08:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jail (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is much notability of the song's origins being discussed in background and the info around inclusion of "Pt 2", as well as Jay-Z's feature and chart positions are obviously not the be-all-end-all yet the song charted in so many countries these obviously have an affect on notability. --K. Peake 07:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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? WP:NSONG is explicit that charting is only a positive indicator that a search for significant coverage will be successful—charting history does not relax coverage standards for song notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 09:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 08:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Burn (¥$ song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 08:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After Midnight (Chappell Roan song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". I believe 1, 2, 3 have more than trivial mentions, and along with the other sources used in the article, allow for a reasonably detailed article. Medxvo (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NSONG is explicit that album reviews do not establish notability for songs. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two of these sources are track rankings, not album reviews. Per WP:GNG "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)". An article has to meet either GNG or NSONG, even though it meets NSONG in my opinion for having a reasonably detailed article and two certifications. Medxvo (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Full-album track rankings are definitely album reviews. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They still have more than trivial mentions, which should meet WP:GNG. Medxvo (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question I agree with Medxvo that the article passes WP:GNG insofar as it has "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". However, I also simultaneously agree with Zanahary that this fails WP:NSONG. I think there is an inherent conflict between WP:GNG and WP:NSONG here because multiple instances of in-depth, detailed discussion within album reviews clearly passes the plain language of WP:GNG, but also clearly fail the specific criteria in WP:NSONG. I'm inclined to lean towards a keep vote because WP:GNG says either its language or the subject-specific notability policy can both work, but for them to be basically directly contradictory seems odd. Can anyone provide insight about which one governs - has this issue been discussed by the community in the past? Does this merit an RFC or a modification to these criteria to avoid such a blatant contradiction? Flip^and Flopped ツ 05:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Upon consulting other AfD noms, I see some evidence from prior AfDs that the community has interpreted WP:GNG to save the article even when WP:NSONG is not met; see e.g. this 2024 AfD to that effect. In the absence of an RFC clarifying otherwise, I say Keep per WP:GNG's statement that "the article can meet either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)" (emphasis added). Flip^and Flopped ツ 17:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV: there are plenty of reviews that more than name-check the song. As I've said before, mixed reviews are the best way of ascertaining the significance for a book, song, or play. The Pitchfork and Buzzfeed reviews for this single are illustrative of this phenomenon. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent album. The album reviews don't write more than a sentence about the song. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crybaby (SZA song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; no WP:SIGCOV of this song. Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the rationale of "no WP:SIGCOV" is baffling; a HotNewHipHop source cited in the article proves otherwise. That aside, there was coverage of this song back when it was still unreleased, starting with the BST Hyde Park teaser (Wonderland magazine, Nylon, Teen Vogue). It was teased again at Lollapalooza 2024, which Rolling Stone covered (although briefly, I will admit). Regardless, all of these sources highlight the lyrics, composition, and/or accompanying visuals (that specified some sort of bug aesthetic), in some form or another. I'd argue these constitute enough SIGCOV for the song. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 19:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A single HNHH review is not sufficiently significant coverage, in my view. Without a source that connects those pre-release sources to Crybaby, it’s original and irrelevant as far as establishing the song’s notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Without a source that connects those pre-release sources to Crybaby" I do not know what this means and I am sure no enwiki deletion guideline (or any guideline for that matter) supports this either. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 07:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating what I've said about SIGCOV somewhere else: for an article subject to have SIGCOV, there should be "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." With most of the sources above that is clearly what is happening. And SNGs do not supersede GNG; "A topic is presumed to merit an article if (1) it meets either the [GNG] or [SNG]", to quote WP:N. Furthermore, there is enough content in this article such that merging it to the album article in a way that would keep the essential, cited information would give the subject undue weight (all this to say that NOPAGE does not apply). Quoting a sample of the references used in the article to show the coverage the song has received:
In Nylon, "After hinting at something new in the works, the SOS singer just shared an ethereal and mysterious clip featuring new music — and an earthy and fresh aesthetic. 'I know you told stories about me,' she croons over a groovy bass line and distant nature sound effects. 'Most of them awful, all of them true. Here's some for you.' In the clip, which appears to be for new track 'Storytime,' a camera pushes through a dark forest before stopping in front of a blue-colored, insect-like creature with long antennae. As it turns out, the bug in question is none other than SZA herself [...] And if there was any doubt about what the visual pivot implied, she confirmed that her long-awaited follow-up is, in fact, coming after playing the 'Storytime' snippet in London. 'New album, you ready?' she shouted to an enthusiastic crowd."

In HotNewHipHop, "Its origins supposedly trace back to a Hyde Park set in London during the summer of this year. Then, it was teased at the end of the full music video for 'Drive' yesterday. Now, the completed version is here, and it's got some great writing and stunning singing, which is what you come to expect from SZA. It finds her taking on her flaws and insecurities and embracing them. Overall, she's faced a lot of pressure throughout her career; something she acknowledges on the first verse. But the way she was able flip the narrative around on her 'Cry Baby' is special. [indicates what the writer believes are 'quotable lyrics']"

In Teen Vogue, "She also teased a snippet of an unreleased track called 'Storytime' during her set and made things official on Instagram by posting a teaser of her forthcoming album featuring the song and mimicking her new set’s aesthetics, ending with a closeup of SZA herself transformed into a bug [...] Fans believe all the teasers are in reference to Lana, which the singer had previously announced as her next album [...] There have been plenty of teasers for the project to date, but her BST performance is the first time the singer has referenced a 'new album' explicitly in a while."

Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 01:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to the album; as I said in the last AfD, charting at 71 (or 70) in this case isn't terribly notable. Sourcing used is focused on the album as a collection of songs, not about any song in particular. The package of songs/album maybe remembered, but each song barely got critical notice by itself. Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elias's rationale above, but also note that the outcome of this AfD nom is potentially dependent on outcome of the ongoing RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). Flip^and Flopped ツ 02:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was a proper WP:BEFORE actually done on this? There are three song nominations in 3 minutes from Zanahary, not to mention another 10ish in the previous 15, all from exceptionally popular artists. I'm not convinced due diligence is being done on any of these nominations, and it's just putting a burden on other editors.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely other sources going in depth about the song itself:

https://www.stayfreeradioip.com/post/sza-crybaby-meaning-and-review

https://www.hercampus.com/culture/sza-crybaby-lyrics-explained/

These are more blog-like sources and ultimately may be deemed unreliable, but I would expect them to give some pause for reading between nominations. Considering WP:PRESERVE quickly nominating a bunch of articles based on NSONG should not be a first resort. Start by tagging the articles at least, and if nothing changes come back and then nominate for deletion. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources don't seem reliable at all. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of current Jesuit cardinals

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

This content is largely overlapping with the Wikipedia page List of current cardinals, where readers can see which religious orders are represented in the College of Cardinals and how many cardinals are associated with a particular order. The article is largely out of date and has but a few sources, other religious orders don't have such articles for listing current cardinals. Killuminator (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing any coverage of this subject as a group to pass WP:NLIST. The source in-article that describes this group is an WP:SPS college faculty member's personal webpage and thus not a reliable source. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here worth preserving that doesn't belong at List of current cardinals. I.e. this is unnecessary fork. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The religious orders were only added in 2018 to the main list, while this page was created in 2014. At the time, it was added value. Today, it is not. I am working on a page of "All Jesuits Cardinals" since the first one: Francisco de Toledo in 1593. My plan was originally to build on this article and change the name. I can always just create a new article when I am done. :Coquidragon (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Baker (entertainer)

AfDs for this article:

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

Was nominated by Badbluebus back in February, and was closed as a soft delete, with only one other editor !voting for delete. No oppose votes. There simply is not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show that they pass notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Field Trip (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:59, 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]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2014-08 move to → Field Trip (Toby Keith song)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am objecting to this AfD to prevent it being closed as soft delete/redirect. The first source in the article seems to be specific to the song. This deserves further discussion. Toadspike [Talk] 08:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdi Awad Ali

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

He gets a lot of mentions, but I can't find any significant coverage of him in independent, reliable sources. The current sourcing barely mentions him at all. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Somalia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Debendra Green Grove English High School

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

Does not pass WP:NORG as there are no WP:RS to support. WP:BEFORE can't reflect enough citations to support the case. Bakhtar40 (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Assam. Bakhtar40 (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in It

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are multiple articles discussing the context of Assassin's feature on this song, not Yeezus itself, multiple remixes, 1 this source is dedicated to the song and it charted in the US. --K. Peake 19:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is the only source about this song. The guideline asks for multiple. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 08:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There have been too many Article For Deletion AFD for Kanye West, I don't listen to him but seeing that this one has improved considerably my vote is Keep. Iban14mxl (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No edits have been made to the article at all since deletion—what do you mean when you say this article has been improved? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: arguments to keep would be strengthened with clear discussion of what sourcing exists to establish notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dafuniks

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

The band does not meet criteria set out by WP:BAND and has not been the subject of coverage to meet WP:BASIC. Uffda608 (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark, Music, and Bands and musicians. Uffda608 (talk) 12:32, 21 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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Singhal (entrepreneur)

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

I can't see any significant coverage which can justify the topic's notability. Fails WP:GNG. SatNam20 (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, India, and West Bengal. SatNam20 (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is significant coverage but most is WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I did find this reference which is acceptable for notability. If anyone can find additional press ping me here and I will gladly review. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reference you posted is in the Hub4Business section which appears highly suspect to me. All the stories appear to be from one author and they are published at a very high rate (10 published yesterday!!!) which probably means a lot of the material is coming from someone else (aka who its about) or is otherwise suspect. I am not seeing anything in this article that makes me think they are going to be receiving any notable coverage. Moritoriko (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree. The reference you mentioned is likely to be AI-generated, which means it's not reliable. All in all, it can 100% be said that source is not reliable, and likely primary as well.
WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All sources I can find mentioning this person are paid pieces/churnalism. Compare these two quotes from different sources from a year apart.

Under Singhal's guidance, Tolaram Group expanded its operations and diversified its product portfolio, establishing itself as a major player in Nigeria's consumer goods industry. Singhal's strategic approach was recognized by the Harvard Business Review in 2018, which highlighted the rise of Indomie Noodles and its relevance to Nigerian consumers.

Under Singhal's leadership, Tolaram Group broadened its operations and diversified its product range, becoming a significant force in Nigeria's consumer goods market. In association with Kellogg, the company developed a noodle brand that received huge acceptance in North Africa and is now launched in Turkey and Saudi Arabia. His strategic vision was acknowledged by the Harvard Business Review in 2018, which spotlighted the growth of Indomie Noodles and its importance to Nigerian consumers.

And the second one is barely technically true, Indomie already existed as a brand, and the Harvard Case Study which is the only Harvard thing I can find talking about Indomie doesn't mention his name in the blurb (I'm not paying for it). Other sources I am finding are referring to different Deepak Singhals.

Delete - per above. All sources that I too can find seem to be PR/paid articles, which can be hard to distinguish.

WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zaur Hasanov

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

The person is not a notable. Yousiphh (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Illest Motherfucker Alive

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 08:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of seven nominations by this nominator being pointlessly relisted today alone (Frank's Track (AfD discussion), Hoodrat (AfD discussion), Jail (song) (AfD discussion), I'm in It (AfD discussion), Illest Motherfucker Alive (AfD discussion), God Is (AfD discussion), Burn (¥$ song) (AfD discussion)) that are a waste of everyone's time because deletion is not requested either by the nominatior or by anyone else at all even after a week. This is Articles for deletion. If it does not involve the administrator deletion tool, this is not the place. Uncle G (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This How I'm Coming 2

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

Fails WP:RELIABILITY; affiliated with article of artist deleted following nomination. DBrown SPS (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article meets the criteria for standalone notability under WP:NALBUM. The mixtape features "Slide," which became one of FBG Duck's most notable singles, peaking at #15 on the Billboard Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart.^[1] and went certified gold^[2] That’s significant coverage in a highly reliable, independent source.

The album is also part of an established mixtape series. Momentoftrue (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Shaikh (actor)

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

The sources cover the person in brief and in a passing manner or using his citations primarily. No significant independent and multiple sources per GNG or ANYBIO. Cinder painter (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Repost of deleted and salted material: Salman Shaikh/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salman Shaikh. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pppery the nomination you mentioned was about 4 years ago and the subject of the article has from then, received significant roles in television and movies and also has received good amount of coverage from TOI and more sources. The title was salted because apart from this subject there were several more subjects with the same name trying to create articles on this title page. Knowledgedghoul (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has several lead roles in television and films, supporting roles and decent coverage. If you consider that there are tons of pages on Wikipedia which are kept having lesser coverage and work credits. Knowledgedghoul (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Knowledgedghoul (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP: NACTOR- various significant roles (recurring/supporting) in notable productions. -Mushy Yank. 19:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Salman Shaikh: meets WP: NACTOR with multiple significant roles in various notable shows. The actor has played several parallel and negative lead roles in various shows and currently playing the parallel lead in Pocket Mein Aasman.--Iamaninnocentsoul (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vulnerable (Selena Gomez 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꧂ 23:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no revelant sources to support the song on its own. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rare (Selena Gomez album). Has received coverage independent of the album at Glamour, Business Insider, Time, but coverage can probably adequately be incorporated in the album article as I don't see this article's body being more than 4 paragraphs long. Heartfox (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Top 20 song on two charts, and three reviews of at least a full sentence, indicating significant coverage. I'm not opposed to a merger. Bearian (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Bearian, The song entered charts in different countries and was featured in reliable sources like Time, Business Insider, and Glamour. Even if the article is short, it meets WP:NSONG with independent and relevant coverage. 06:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NSONG Iban14mxl (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or ATD Merge, or Redirect to Rare (Selena Gomez album) per Heartfox. Not seeing independent notability. "Three reviews of at least a full sentence" would be an indication of "NOT" meeting NSONG or GNG when deciding if an article should have a page. "indicating significant coverage", becomes moot when notability is challenged and would be satisfied by a HEY. As far as I can tell, almost every source in the article would meld into Rare as that is the main topic. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (Lee Kelly, 1973)

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

I'll admit this one is pretty difficult to search for, but I don't think it's notable; the site for the capitol grounds appear to be the only real coverage of this piece of public art. Belongs on a list of the artist's works and a list of public art installations in the city. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the work is cited as being among the Washington Capitol collection, a prominent sculpture collection in the Northwest U.S. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This appears to agree with the nominator that the collection is the subject. Uncle G (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of public art in Olympia, Washington, which Uncle G did a nice job touching up. The offical source is not even substantive. An artwork does not inherit notability from its location or the collection it's in, that's no basis for single-sentence, single-source pages. If the collection is prominent, you are welcome to expand Washington State Capitol#Art and monuments as well. Reywas92^Talk 13:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources shared on the article's Talk page and now included as bare citations in the entry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Give us one fact from those sources that is neither in the Washington State official blurb nor the Crooks book. (Hint: Historians can read newspapers, too.) Uncle G (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not the standard for notability, but the first article says that the model for the statute was created in wood. A fact (among several at least) that's in the article and not in either the official blurb or Crooks. Jahaza (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a way to evaluate the depths of the sources being waved around, which have been merely described as "this" and "a bit weak"; and notability is very much about the depth of sourcing. If you aren't looking for depth, you aren't doing it right. Uncle G (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok ... But no response to the fact that the articles do contain facts not found in Crooks or the official blurb? Jahaza (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the coverage seems to have happened because of the prominent location of the work, but the coverage exists. Jahaza (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gojo (character)

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

This article has been unsourced since 2023, all the Raj-specific sources I could find are unreliable, and people searching this are more likely looking for Satoru (which, to be fair, IS hatnoted but still). I know this because this article has gotten 433 pageviews in the past 30 days BUT the article on Satoru alone has gotten 15,160 in the past 10 User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 10:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Raj Comics, I think there could be a short description of the character there. Honestly that article needs work too but I can't read enough of the hindi sources to do it. Moritoriko (talk)

On second thought, if most of the views are trying to find Gojo Satoru then a redirect will only be more confusing. I am open to being convinced. Moritoriko (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haroon-Gavin

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

Non-notable music composer duo. Sources are just passing mentions and reworded press releases. Nothing in-depth or independent. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Junbeesh (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Maharashtra. Junbeesh (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Film, and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Languages (YouTube)

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

This YouTube channel does not meet the inclusion criteria. After reviewing the cited sources, it is clear that there is a lack of significant, independent, and reliable coverage necessary to establish notability. The first two sources are interviews with the subject, which are inherently not independent and cannot be used to demonstrate notability. The third source, published by the University of Münster (uni-muenster), also fails the independence test, as the host of the YouTube channel appears to be an alumna of the same university. The fifth source cited in the article does not mention the YouTube channel at all. Junbeesh (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Germany. Junbeesh (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fixed a broken link which was the reason why the fifth source was being claimed as irrelevant. In addition, the idea that writing about an alumna is a conflict of interest seems spurious to me. This seems like the same idea as arguing that academic journals are default biased by focusing on a specific topic; the topic here is just "alumni/ae of the University of Münster" instead of something like "education". Mcavoybickford (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: A thesis [54] and some discussion in a journal [55], with the other sources in the article we should be able to build a basic/stub article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Catalan-language paper here [56]. Oaktree b (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aap Ke Liye Hum

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreleased film that does not meet WP:NFILM or WP:UNRELEASED. This isn't like Batgirl or Marudhanayagam whose failure to release or even complete filming made headlines. I'm not opposed to merging this with June R. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as you say. Given the announced cast. But what makes you say it was not released? -Mushy Yank. 13:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Over here, one of the film's actors says, "As far as 'Aap Ke Liye Hum' is concerned, I don't know what is the status of the film, or when is it going to release". Kailash29792 (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -Mushy Yank. 14:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage. I would not be opposed to a mention and redirect to --CNMall41 (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)June R if you feel there is enough history that should be preserved. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Super Blood Hockey

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

Fails GNG via a lack of significant coverage. All the sources are routine coverage of the release of a game and are short sentences or paragraph of basic descriptions of the game. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with the characterization of the Nintendo Life source as "short sentence", "paragraph", or "basic description of the game". It's 531 words, six paragraphs, and contains substantial review content. In addition to the sources in the article, other sources considered acceptable per WP:VG/RS: Nintendo World Report [57], Nintendojo [58], and Gamestar [59]. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above reviews. Also checking the game's Metacritic page, I see a Push Square review: [60] --Mika1h (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The dumbness of the EU cookie consent law

AfDs for this article:

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

This looks like an example of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT, an op-ed/blog post about EU law. It looks like the EU cookie directive section on the HTTP cookie page covers this topic well enough. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is fundamentally not Wikipedia material and it looks like just the opinion of one editor. If it really represents a commonly held idea on criticizing the EU cookie consent law, its title would not have the word "dumbness". As far I have seen, I have not seen any criticism page which contains the word "dumbness", much less has it in its title. Dr. Hyde, muahahaha _{jekyllthefabulous} (speak, or you shall die) 05:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Chock full of WP:OR, all sources are unreliable (Reddit as a source, really?), complete violation of WP:NPOV throughout, even in the title. Blow it up! jolielover♥talk 06:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
quick comment, the first nomination isn't formatted properly and was created about the same time. Should we merge this? jolielover♥talk 06:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. Dr. Hyde, muahahaha _{jekyllthefabulous} (speak, or you shall die) 07:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unencyclopedic essay, POV-fork, etc. I know essays don’t get speedy deletes, but I would support… a really fast delete! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (WP:SNOW or WP:IAR) From the title of the article onwards it is clear this is an opinon piece and not encyclopaedic content. Dorsetonian (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was nominated for speedy deletion a few hours ago, and then it was contested by someone who thought that it was just the tone that was the problem, such that it could be improved. Dr. Hyde, muahahaha _{jekyllthefabulous} (speak, or you shall die) 07:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy was rejected because A7 did not apply - it is not about a website. Dorsetonian (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Dorsetonian said, A7 does not apply to this article. I removed the speedy tag for that reason alone, not because I thought the article had much potential. I considered redirecting it to the target of EU cookie directive, but I didn't think a title with "dumbness" would be a plausible search term. I tagged it with {{tone}} because that was the clearest issue I could identify, and planned to come back to it the next day to decide whether to tag it with PROD or nominate it here at AfD. Now that someone's beaten me to it, I have no objection to its deletion. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to tag it for speedy deletion immediately after one CSD got rejected, and I don't actually know if there's a CSD criteria for editorializing. It isn't G1, G10 or A11, so AfD might be the right process? BuySomeApples (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per blatant WP:NPOV violation and common sense (low-effort opinion piece).
Delete. Blatant op-ed with lousy sourcing. 2405:DA40:5017:7800:6C96:474B:278:A7AD (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Click-bait title, this isn't something wikipedia needs. The opinions mentioned could be a sentence in the main European cookie article, but none are from a RS regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely biased and non-encyclopaedic. Could be a WP:G11 ("promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc.) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a place for posting your rants. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOT / WP:NPOV Squawk7700 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: That even the title, much less the actual content, fails WP:NOTOPINION probably says all that needs to be said here. I'm not entirely sure if any speedy deletion criterion perfectly fits, but I don't expect this to need the full seven days either. (And the only reason this is the "second nomination" was because the first nomination by Mcduarte2000 (talk · contribs); was incomplete and unformatted; I also note that just before that one, new user DeltaWeb (talk · contribs) attempted to nominate this via the talk page. Both prior attempts more-or-less expressed the same concerns pretty much everyone else has.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur that this is what we're NOT supposed to do... Just one person's opinion, fine for your instragram page but not here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and probably eligible for speedy, it is not neutral at all. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and sent it to WP:DAFT. This is a clear violation of WP:NOT. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Should have been retagged for speedy delete based on violations of WP:ATTACK. Yue🌙 01:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fundamentally fails NPOV. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adwaidh.R (dancer)

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

Not notable. None of the listed references mention an "Adwaidh", and a Google search didn't turn up any reliable sources. (NPP action) jlwoodwa (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Dance, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo with only insignificant sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Animecon (Netherlands)

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

Cannot find sources. All sources in article are Template:Third-party violations. Roasted (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, Anime and manga, Entertainment, Events, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi Quest

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NBOOKS, I didn't any reviews or appearances on bestseller lists. Suggesting a redirection to List of Star Wars books. Mika1h (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Mika1h (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm seeing VALNET stuff like this listicle, so they clearly exist and are discussed, but it's not clear to me whether the series is notable or not. Of note, however, I like the fact that we have one article for a series, rather than one for each of the 11 books, so for that reason, I'm leaning towards keep. Jclemens (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are some sources I found about books in the series:
1. Thomas, Harry (2001-10-21). "Anakin's trek to dark side". San Antonio Express-News. Archived from the original on 2025-04-14. Retrieved 2025-04-14.
  The review notes: "Star Wars Jedi Quest: Path To Truth ... While the novel is mainly aimed at the 9-12 set, older readers interested in the "Star Wars" universe will find this book interesting, if a little slower than the more adult-oriented novels."
2. "The Way of the Apprentice review". Canadian Review of Materials. 2002-10-18.
  This book verifies that the book was reviewed in Canadian Review of Materials.
3. Szadkowski, Joseph (2001-08-11). "Weapon Kosher deployed to fight the Evil Produce". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on 2025-04-14. Retrieved 2025-04-14.
  The review notes: "3. Star Wars: Jedi Quest, No. 1 (Dark Horse Comics, $2.99). If Anakin is to become a Jedi, he must follow the teachings of his master, Obi-Wan Kenobi. One of the first steps on the long and intense journey to becoming a Jedi is to overcome fear, and the young former slave who now trains to be a Jedi has encountered more than his fair share of fearful elements in the universe. Now, as a Jedi-in-training, Anakin accepts a mission that will force him to confront his deepest, darkest fears - first on a spiritual training exercise, and eventually face-to-face with the memories that haunt him most. The force permeates through 32 pages of Kenobi-inspired color. Why should I (the consumer) care? This four-issue miniseries provides a graphic companion to the Jude Watson's Bantam Star Wars novel of the same name, being released later this month. Readers will get the background on a 12-year-old Anakin Skywalker as he learns the Jedi craft, battles space pirates such as Krayn the ugly, builds his lightsaber and develops a personality only the Dark Lords of the Sith would admire."
Cunard (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided above. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Wow, I remember reading this book. It wasn't very good but that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't notable. Kevin J. Anderson's first novel in the SW Extended Universe, was it?~~ EDIT: I am clearly thinking about the other Jedi Quest. I see that the only two sources listed in the article are TheForce.net. Let's see if we can do better. I don't think that the fact that any individual book in the series had a brief review in an RS necessarily proves the series' notability. I'd rather see an analysis of the cultural significance of hte series overall. In this case, we've got our work cut out for us what with the Anderson novel of the same name jamming the search results. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

José Antonio Sossa

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

Insufficient coverage, limited to talking about BLP court cases. I compile part of the conditions of a BLP "Biographies of living persons should be written conservatively and respecting the neutrality of the subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: its function is not to be sensationalist nor to be the main vehicle for the dissemination of judicial statements. Iban14mxl (talk) 19:47, 13 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL. Seems like he held a national high position (attorney general). But I think the article needs to be clean up significantly but AFD is not clean up Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 01:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

apart from the fact that it is unknown when he was born Iban14mxl (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a reason to delete the page. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reviewing all the sources, it's clear they do not support notability under either WP:GNG. The WP:SIGCOV of the subject is in unreliable sources 190.33.41.159 (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)— 190.33.41.159 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jacoby (political consultant)

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:CRIMINAL. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources, just trivial one-sentence mention that he:

Worked as a canvasser on the 2020 Kanye West presidential campaign, collecting signatures.
Was arrested in 2008 and later pleaded guilty to charges of voter fraud. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment subject is mentioned in several reliable third-party publications and may meet WP:NBASIC if deeper search is performed. Mekomo (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being arrested does not exclude him. He was arrested in CA for doing Republican work. He personally did not commit the fraud. Jacoby has built things up since then to prevent the same thing happening. Jacoby is INNOCENT. Alympia.verougstraete (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the subject of the article has been subject to a huge about of coverage over the past four years, and if not a public figure, is very close. The article itself needs clean-up, but it's not so bad it needs a clean break. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, or at least through last week, but we are not the jury. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Can you list some sources that provide a "huge amount of coverage" that is biographical, and not just trivial mention of his work with Kanye West, and his criminal conviction? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His work outside of Ye was discussed here, there, and yonder. Is that significant enough? Discuss. Bearian (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also discuss: is People magazine reliable enough? Bearian (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources do not support notability.

The first source describes his criminal activity and his company, with almost no biographical detail.
The second source describes his criminal activity, with almost no biographical detail.
The third source describes his criminal activity, with no biographical detail.

Please note that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability", per WP:BASIC. --Magnolia677 (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meme hack

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

This seems to be an article on an obscure, disused term that was coined in the late 90s to early 2000s and is only used in two sources, and doesn't even seem to be meaningfully distinct from something like culture jamming or détournement. The second source is particularly weak as it doesn't even really provide anthing other than a definition on a defunct right-wing blog with very little information or further context. Iostn (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Détournement as an WP:ATD per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Détournement as an WP:ATD .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
re: redirecting, I'm not actually sure if this should go to Détournement as there are several other articles this could go to, such as culture jamming or subvertising Iostn (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is Détournement the best redirect target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Term seems to have evolved into something else [61], but that's the only use of the phrase I can find. There are no RS discussing it regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if Détournement or any of the proposed targets really count. All of those involve defacing the meme, while the definition provided for Meme hack sounds more like Co-option#Second sense. What about we redirect there? (Also, about Oaktree's link, that seems to me a neologism that article attempted to coin and failed to popularize.) Aaron Liu (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, everyone is working hard to find a synonym to redirect to, but none of these are quite right, and Co-option is dangerously close to WP:DICDEF (if not a disambiguation or index page) and very poorly cited. Suggest we just get rid of Meme hack, given the lack of support for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the current state of that article is nowhere near, but I think it has great potential to discuss sources' analysis of co-option in e.g. politics, along with past examples of meme hacks like Red pill and blue pill#In the manosphere. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nemrah Ahmed Khan

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

The article is about author. I have searched about the subject but didn't find significant coverages.. That can pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Although I did come across a few mentions about the person, they were news-related and not about the work for which the person is known as an author. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am trying to find sources, not easy when I do not read Urdu. However, it looks like she may have had more than one bestseller - Mus'haf as noted (but not yet sourced) in the article, and Jannat Kay Pattay, mentioned in this [62] and this [63]. I will try to find better sources. I note too that on the Talk:Nemrah Ahmed Khan page, there is mention of other Romanised spellings of her name, including Nimra Ahmad. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:37, 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!} 23:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Faradj Al-Shalawi

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

Declined prod. All the sources added are databases and not in depth coverage for meeting WP:SPORTSCRIT. I believe Olympians.sa is a primary source as a website of the Saudi Olympic Federation. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Saudi Arabia. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on WP:NEXIST, and not all sources added are databases, for example the olympians.sa source is a non-SIGCOV mention but not a database. I expanded the article just before it was nominated. I think the NEXIST case is strong here because the subject competed at multiple international championships and not just the Olympics, and had some significant achievements as the second-best cross country runner in Saudi Arabia, unlike most Olympian stubs. I'd expect more coverage to be found in Saudi newspaper archives from the 1970s. --Habst (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This NEXIST argument hasn't worked in any of the last 15 AfDs you've used it in as your primary keep rationale.[64]
[65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78] You've been advised of our requirement for sources to actually be identified by Liz on multiple occasions over the last year, e.g. May 2024:
Ultimately, User:BusterD is correct, sources must be present in the article or brought into the discussion. A "There must be sources" attitude could be used to justify an article on any subject imaginable. We have to deal with information available now, that exist during the course of this discussion, not at a hypothetical future time.
and April 2025: I never want to discourage editors who are passionate about editing and a subject but it's unfortunate that we need to rehash old disputes years later. We need reliable sources to establish and verify notability.
Multiple other admins and users have also reminded you of our global consensus requiring sportsperson articles cite a source of IRS SIGCOV. Continuing to waste editors' time with the same disinformative anti-consensus arguments that others are forced to rebut (and we do end up having to address them, otherwise situations like here where an AfD with little participation beyond your own is initially closed as keep by passing non-admins and ends up needing to be reopened) is beyond IDHT territory and well into tendentiousness. JoelleJay (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NEXIST isn't entirely invalid (although I haven't considered it an argument worth making in some of these). Honestly, if archives were actually checked, probably the vast majority of those 15 would turn out to be notable... BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After 2022, at least one piece of significant, independent coverage must be located and included in the article before it is published, not an infinite amount of years after the article has been published. Geschichte (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These articles were created before that rule was in place, thus making it impossible to have it "before" it is published. It isn't unreasonable to conclude based on one's accomplishments that it is certain a nation would have covered them, although I wouldn't personally make that argument in this case. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, I greatly respect your contributions. I agree with most of your comment above, but that doesn't change the fact that NEXIST can sometimes be a valid rationale. If you want to refute the NEXIST argument, then you can do that on those merits and there's no issue because I think you present a good case. The frequent personal comments about me however are inappropriate. --Habst (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually respected people's time you wouldn't relentlessly demand others rebut your series of increasingly preposterous and actively anti-consensus arguments across dozens of AfDs. JoelleJay (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a volunteer service and I would never impose any requirements or demands on any editor. The vast majority of my editing time is spent improving articles and not at AfD, and I have always respected consensus. I don't understand why the personal comments are necessary. --Habst (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails SIGCOV. As for the NEXIST argument, I'm not convinced. Not sure how big on track and field the Saudis were in the 1970s, or even are now for that matter, and this guy didn't exactly set the world on fire with his performances. Seems like tilting at windmills to me. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saudi Arabia at the 1976 Summer Olympics: Like the nom, I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV to have this subject meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT. The poor Olympic performance seemingly also makes it less likely that the subject has offline coverage in Saudi newspapers, so I think WP:NEXIST is not a suitable argument here. Let'srun (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indanan Kasim Daud

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

This page is not notable. A former mayor of a normal municipality is not a notable position to hold. Barely any reliable sources inside and outside the article. The article being a stub does not help the case any better. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 03:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Philippines. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 03:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, NPOL. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 03:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Casimiro Andrada

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

This person is not notable. An old mayor of a 35k populated town does not seem notable. Barely any reliable sources are presented in the article and outside the article. Even though a high school is named after him, it does not bring any more reliable sources to his name. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 02:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Philippines. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 02:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WellPoint Systems

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

Subject doesn't appear to be notable - the current references in the article are almost (if not all) all primary sources, and upon search, I can't seem to find any reliable, secondary sources about the subject. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Canada. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, not to mention there is also a slight COI issue. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The term "wellpoint system" may be notable, but this company is not. I found this WSJ article from 2011 but nothing else that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. If the company was worthy of notice, it would have received more coverage that meets WP:ORGCRIT since its founding 28 years ago. I would be happy to review any sources presented below should I have missed something. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reformed systematic theology bibliography

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

without sources and all material is a newspaper archive or redirect to Systematic theology Iban14mxl (talk) 01:00, 21 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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: I don't see any valid rationale here. (The books themselves are sources, so it is not unsourced.) I don't see anything to do with a newspaper archive. These kinds of bibliographies have a valid rationale as standalone articles (see WP:BIB). This appears to be a malformed nomination from someone who has recently been warned by Liz for their AfD activity. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as not seeing a valid deletion reason and the list is a useful navigation tool for researching the notable authors listed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1953 Saarland national football team

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

No significant coverage. I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - article itself can't be sustained with no coverage; better idea is to merge/redirect these articles to country season articles if available. Also raises concerns on the existence of this template. FastCube (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Saarland national football team results Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't exist, and there would still need to be coverage. SL93 (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just found this discussion, where it was briefly discussed to merge them with Saarland national football team - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 168#National football team seasons. However, the needed information is already present in that article. SL93 (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or Merge -- No SIGCOV, either create and merge to Saarland national football team results or simply expand (if necessary) the information present in Saarland national football team.MWFwiki (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Saarland national football team results.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Saarland national football team results – As suggested above. Svartner (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - the article alone can't hold up, but I think a merger of all of them together would be the best solution. Squawk7700 (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gilberto Martínez (Mexican footballer)

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

The subject played three matches in Liga MX and a few more in Mexico's second tier. I've been unable to find anything beyond database entries, passing mentions in match reports and transfer announcements. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In concurrence with Robby.is.on and Svartner, it fails WP:GNG. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no RS. GoldRomean (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Top 10 Most Inspiring Portuguese Women". Discover Walks. Retrieved 21 April 2025.

[2] ttps://www.billboard.com/artist/fbg-duck/chart-history/nbs/

[3] ttps://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&ar=Fbg+Duck&ti=Slide

[1]

[1]

[2]