Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

21 March 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 20	March 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Bhateja

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

Non notable subject, lack of Wp:SIGCOV. Poorly sourced and promotional content. Zuck28 (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, Hinduism, Sikhism, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Zuck28 (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of Ruby

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

Should be redirected to Ruby (programming language). Pretty much only primary sources, WP:NOTCHANGELOG, see talk page for existing discussion. Gracen (they/them) 21:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Computing, and Software. Gracen (they/them) 21:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025 Venezuelan deportations

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

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TRUMPCRUFT. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 20:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 20:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep It's historical in that it's only the 3rd time in US history where the Alien Sedition Act has been used. There are 21 sources so far, and that's just a starting point. I think the deportation of Jerce Reyes Barrios may have enough solid sources to merit an article, and that's just one small piece of the bigger story.
Bob drobbs (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I understand the arguments about notnews and trumpcruft, but this topic has major US constitutional implications, particularly since chief justice Roberts has weighed in. Nowa (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. It's an important legal case. As already noted, this is the first time that any President has attempted to use a wartime act, the Alien Enemies Act, when the country isn't at war. (Previously used only in the War of 1812, WWI and WWII.) A week into the case, Trump has already called for the judge to be impeached because he dislikes the rulings, leading the Chief Justice of SCOTUS to rebuke Trump. The judge is currently trying to assess whether the government purposefully ignored a judicial order, contributing to some scholars' judgments that the US sliding into a constitutional crisis. People have been deported without due process, despite at least some of them being in the country legally and the Trump admin. admitting that many of them hadn't broken any laws. The fact that some Trump articles are cruft does not imply that all are, and this one isn't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GLX Digital

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

Does not fulfill the notability requirements Somajyoti (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Somajyoti (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software, Singapore, Qatar, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Persamba West Manggarai

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

Amateur club - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Would redirect to their league, but the article purports that they are in Liga 4 (Indonesia), but they are not mentioned on that page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dorrance Publishing Company

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

I see no SIRS sources, maybe except [1], but that may fall under TRADES. Janhrach (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Business, and Pennsylvania. Janhrach (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are 25,000+ hits for this on newspapers.com. I would guess at least some of those are sigcov. Generally it is extremely difficult to find sigcov for prolific book publishers, not because it doesn't exist, but because it's drowned out by decades worth of citations to the books they published. Not voting but I would advise people be careful before they vote. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yeah, they've been around for 100 yrs and you get a zillion hits in Gnews and Gscholar, but I can't find much about the company. I found a newspaper ad from 1939 and stuff published in 2022 from them. This is a hard one. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that hard. Strange but untrue (talk · contribs) did some of the hard work back in 2015 finding that magazine source by Mick Rooney. And it's easy to filter out publication credits just by looking for things about the founder. That said, other than the Rooney 2014 source all that I've found is sources that lump this in with Vantage Press. Uncle G (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what I find online is around the book Why is Your Country at War by Lindburgh, gov't had the printing plates destroyed during WW1, "Why is your country at war gordon dorrance" brings up still lots of coverage, but the NY Times and others had articles about it, I'll see if I can free up some time later to go through them. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Some info found in obituaries for Gordon Dorrance that founded the company. This appears to be independent [2]. You can also look up about a class action lawsuit against the company recently. We probably have enough for a Basic stub article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Gänser

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

no significant coverage, fails gng ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 18:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 18:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ansovell

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

Does not appear to be notable per:Wikipedia:Notability. One of the sources it uses is a map service. The other is a data base. Both do not show anything notable about it other then it exists, which is not enough for an entire article about by it self. I suggest that we delete it or merge with Cava, Spain. She riff U3 17:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. She riff U3 17:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

El Querforadat

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

Does not appear to be notable per:Wikipedia:Notability. One of the sources it uses is a map service. The other is a data base. Both do not show anything notable about it other then it exists, which is not enough for an entire article about by it self. I suggest that we delete it or merge with Cava, Spain. She riff U3 17:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. She riff U3 17:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Pantheist Society

AfDs for this article:

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

I thought that this could be cleaned up, and I thought that I had found an actual source on the subject, an encyclopaedia article on this very thing — only for my hopes to be dashed when I checked the article author Harold Wood Jr in the author listing of ISBN 9781441122780 and found that xe is the founder of this organization.

The one real claim to sourcing in the prior AFD discussion was that Special:Permalink/153980923#External links means that the article "is referenced". It was not. It is not. The article itself pointed and points solely to the organization's own WWW site and what used to be the personal WWW site of one of its directors. On the organization's own WWW site is an outright copy of the same encyclopaedia article by Wood Jr. This is the only documentation of this organization to be found anywhere, and it all comes back to autobiography. There is no independent sourcing at all.

The nominator and several of the participants in the prior AFD discussion were quite right, but were outvoted by "assuming there's a real source", comments on the nominator, and bizarre comments that seem to be saying that we should keep the pantheism article.

Uncle G (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Religion. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a lot of mentions of this, but it's hard to sort out them from any sigcov that may exist. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You also have to see whether it's written by Harold Wood Jr, which all of the ones that I turned up turned out to be. One turns up a 1999 Encyclopaedia of Associations entry, for example, and it turns out that it points to the organization's old AOL site by Harold W. Wood Jr. Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Montessori School of Duluth

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

Local elementary school with only local coverage. 🄻 🄰 17:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Minnesota. 🄻 🄰 17:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Freeman (disambiguation)

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

Disambiguation pages aren't needed for only two items, see WP:ONEOTHER. One of the pages is just a redirect anyway. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Colin Zhong (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing F-47

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

Not enough information, contract was only awarded today. No visual proof of concept, prototype, or model. Frankly, this will likely be one line stub for the next few months to a year at best. Colin Zhong (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep -- Procedurally invalid nomination. None of these are valid deletion reasons; no WP:BEFORE was conducted, and the article is clearly tagged as being in-progress and actively edited. There's already significant reliable source coverage from reuters, The Guardian, The Hill, Aviation Week etc. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a display image of the prototype was next to the president during the press conference/announcement... a photo of the board can be seen here:https://www.twz.com/air/boeing-wins-air-forces-next-generation-air-dominance-fighter-contract 50.37.113.180 (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on news coverage from multiple reputable sources, the F-47 is a notable aircraft whether prototypes have been built or not yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Aviation, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP It's a page that will grow overtime, there's plenty of information currently available on various defense/news outlets. 143.178.72.142 (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As of 2025-03-21, as a publicly announced future aircraft with a contract awarded, this article will be improved with details and sources over time. — MrDolomite • Talk 17:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Obviously. JimConnelley (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that Boeing F-47 Fighter (AfD discussion) also exists as a separate article, started 11 minutes after this one was, and a separate AFD discussion. Please pick one, all of you keepers, so that we don't end up in the farcical situation of two independent discussions arguing to keep two duplicate articles. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, one of those two should be merged version and the other made into a redirect. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Jesus Christ. Wjfox2005 (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Please try to found rationales in deletion policy, too. "Jesus Christ" and "Obviously" are the sort of empty rationales that are just going to get discounted. Look how, in contrast, Swatjester and Fnlayson approach the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The B-21 had a named article for a whole 6 years before the prototype was unveiled. The J-36 and J-50 both have full pages despite those designations being entirely speculative. Seems silly to omit an aircraft that has a formal name and known program history and keep ones that don't 104.255.48.61 (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, obviously. Whatever the problems with the current version, this plane needs an article. PopePompus (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, however this article should still be deleted due to there being a superior duplicate Colin Zhong (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Other planes have pages, why not this one? Abhikhand (talk) 18:02, 21 March 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.

Boeing F-47 Fighter

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

Delete or at least merge with Boeing F-47. Amigao (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Aviation. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{Nay}} I disagree. This article had the most information and citations with infobox developed. MediaGuy768 (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Boeing F-47. nf utvol (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Boeing F-47 page -Fnlayson (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- had no idea this page existed, seems like it might have been simultaneous creations with the main Boeing F-47 article, but in any event the other article has the more accurate title and a greater amount of content; I suspect we don't need to wait the entirety of the duration on this AfD as most of the content appears to have already been merged anyway. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Tayam

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

Only a candidate. Fails wp;politician TheLongTone (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Politicians. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Museu de Memes

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

no reliable sources, fails gng ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 15:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 15:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm seeing a decent amount of Portuguese-language content on Google and Google Books. Anerdw (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hass

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about a drummer, and not found reliable secondary sources to add. I don't think he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NMUSICIAN. He has released an album of his own, but it was self-published and I don't think it charted. No obvious redirect target. Note that I reverted from a longer version of the article, here, but there are no additional sources in that version and nothing that suggests notability to me. Tacyarg (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Tacyarg (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Grunitz

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

A not-so-notable entrepreneur. The sources are weak and do not strongly support a BLP, failing WP:GNG. Nyasalones (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nyasalones (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clever Bins

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this company which manufactured solar-powered bins with advertising, and cannot find coverage to add. The existing references are primary sources or local newspapers. I don't think it meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Redirect to the company's founder, William Sachiti, might also work. Tacyarg (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Lin

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

No evidence of notability. Appears to be a middle-ranking Chinese businessman. The subject doesn't have any significant coverage in reliable sources, the pages currently used only mention him in passing or use him as one of many sources for quotes on a more important topic. The Chinese language source, similarly, is a video interview (so not counting for notability purposes) where the subject seems to be giving his views on aspects of the belt and road.--Boynamedsue (talk) 09:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and China. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified Wikiproject China of this discussion.[3]Boynamedsue (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartathenian (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of S&box games

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

See WP:NLIST. I'm not sure this really needs a separate article from S&box at this point and some content could easily be merged, such as the first-party activities. Lot of very heavy WP:PRIMARY sourcing relied upon to provide content on the games. Other than some minor coverage for Team Fortress: Source 2, the games don't seem independently notable, which definitely raises the onus on whether the category as a whole satisfies WP:NLIST. Given there's no secondary sourcing provided about the games as a whole, I'm inclined to say this isn't. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per nom. Only third-party game that might have some sigcov is Team Fortress: Source 2. IgelRM (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My Summer Cottage is planned to be one of the first released standalone titles for s&box. I'd say give it a chance and let the games materialize. They will have secondary sources very soon. Wikikeyboardwarrior (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside whether notability should be founded on speculating whether an item within it will soon bring it broader notability, the list would still have the core problem of having just one notable title in its ranks and still lacking any sources about the class of games as a whole. This really undermines the point when it could be covered easily within the primary article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartathenian (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Debby Kerner & Ernie Rettino

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

This is unreferenced, sole footnote is broken. Not seeing how this duo meets WP:NBIO. There is a chance they meet NBIO individually (for example, Ernie Rettino had a Grammy nom? [4]). But the duo, under the name given in the article, does not appear to be notable (no GS/GB hits, just Google - and concerns about WP:CITOGENESIS are an issue). Is it even official? Did they have a band under that name? Article does not make this clear...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor on talk pointed out to some coverage in https://www.newspapers.com/image/827463388/ , but I don't have an account there to verify it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly fails WP:GNG. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Boneless Pizza! Were you able to access the newspaper? Since I couldn't, I am not sure if the GNG is a "clear" fail myself... hopefully someone can comment on this before AfD closes. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Probably should be deleted now, but can anyone comment on point raised by User:Piotrus?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartathenian (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barcino railway station

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

Only a database offered as a reference on the page, nothing else on pl.wiki. nothing found which appears to meet the notability criteria for inclusion JMWt (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Poland. JMWt (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had difficulty proving that it had ever existed, sources are so scant. I found a directory entry that gave its closure date as 1991, and said pretty much nothing else, except a lot of fields for things that it did not have. I couldn't get beyond a 1 sentence permastub with what sourcing I found. And this article has done likewise since 2006. If we had an article on the vanished Lipusz—Korzybie line, like the German and Polish Wikipedias have, I'd say that the vanished railway stations are fairly obvious content for such an article. But we have not. Uncle G (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomy and spirituality

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

Perhaps a good article could be written on this topic, but this is not it. The few examples detailed in this article would fit equally well into Astronomy and religion, which is a better developed article. Skyerise (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spirituality and Astronomy. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went back through the earlier revisions of the article, and had a look for sources, and there's really no clue anywhere what an article by this title (not astronomy and religion, nor astronomy and specific religions and their cosmologies) would even be about. The Elisabeth Vreede book of letters is a title string match, and the content of the book is not a discussion of this subject. In the words of old deletion policy, this is an idiosyncratic non-topic. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lokad

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

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

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

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

Well, nothing much to say, article is entirely sourced to its on website. It was G11 deleted in 2015 but brought it here for more assessment of its currently notability standing perhaps there are sources somewhere which I failed to find Ednabrenze (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and France. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Blatant advertising from the ceo. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hard disagree. Yes, I happen to be the CEO, but the tone is neutral. A "Criticisms and Controversies" has been added. None of the other wikipedia pages discussing supply chain software companies has anything like that. This page already exceeds the standards that Wikipedia uphold for the quasi-totality of enterprise software companies. Joannes Vermorel (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO, the content of this webpage can hardly be considered as "blatant adversiting". It is not hostile to the company and it mentions the specifics of the company but all Wikipedia pages about companies are similar in that regard. The reasoning according to which a Wiki page which presents a company in a favourable light should be deleted would lead to the deletion of essentially all pages about companies. This end result is disproportionate. It would also lead to another unfurtonaute consequence: people would only access the websites of companies, which are 100% promotional. Therefore, instead of deleting the webpage, I recommended a discussion about its content, if necessary. 109.190.36.117 (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Lokad is a major player in the supply chain optimization space, and as such it makes sense to have it on wikipedia even if, of course, one could consider it has an advertising effect for the company. But removing company pages based on this principle would lead to the deletion of most, if not all, company pages on wikipedia. I would approve the deletion if the page was explicitely displaying unproved marketing claims (like "provides the most powerful and efficient algorithm"), but the page as it is is just providing factual information about what they do, so I would not describe it as a "blatant advertising". Atchmoom (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note to closing admin: Atchmoom's only edit is to this AFD, and the account was created after this AfD was started. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the page to include more non-Lokad sources. I have also introduce two sections to clarify the significance of the entry - beyond the corporate trivia (aka basic facts about Lokad). Joannes Vermorel (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Applying overly strict criteria for company pages could unintentionally lead to removing many valuable and informative entries from Wikipedia. Perhaps it's more beneficial to focus on improving content quality rather than deletion? NB: As a Tech Advisor and Head of ML & Innovation, I consistently recommend Lokad's resources for inventory optimization and supply chain management projects in the DACH region. Wikipedia article is a good start. "Criticisms and Controversies" help to provide a balanced perspective on the topic from the start. Abdullin Rinat (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: Abdullin Rinat's only edits are to this AFD and the article's talk page. The account was created after this AfD was started. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a professor, director of the MSc programme at the Polytechnic University of Porto, Portugal, and resercher in the field of Supply Chain Science, I consider the open dissemination of advanced and innovative technical content to be of the utmost importance for universities and society in general. Typically, innovative technology companies do not have this facet of contributing to the dissemination of technical knowledge through channels of universal access and high quality scientific content. Lokad's contribution to science and society through the dissemination of relevant and innovative technical content deserves the highest recognition. Its wikipedia page has been extremely useful as a reference for the academic community of technical-scientific excellence and service to society. In order to avoid the loss that would result from deleting the page, I recommend that, if you think something should be changed, you request those changes, which I'm sure will be in line with LOKAD's spirit and values. Thank you. MJPLopes (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: MJPLopes's only edits are to this AFD and the article's talk page. The account was created after this AfD was started. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why this page is marked for deletion. Lokad is one of the few commercially successful AI startups in Europe. At a time when the general public largely equates AI with chatbots, highlighting companies that use AI to run operations (Lokad for supply chain optimization, the only other that comes to mind is aiomatic for predictive maintenance) is really important.
I myself run an AI optimization startup in the US (insideopt.com) and I know how much work is needed to educate the public that modern computer science allows us to bring efficiency to a world that is battling with uncertainty and limited resources. Lokad is a company that helps make our supply chains more resilient and avoid reduce unnecessary transportation and wasted products.
In my humble opinion, it fits Wikis mission to let the public know that these capabilities exist and exist as commercial offerings and not just in theory as research projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meinolf71 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Atchmoom, Abdullin Rinat, MJPLopes, Meinolf71, you're all arguing that Lokad is such a terrific thing/company/resource, and some of you are using your resume to support that opinion, but none of you are showing us the secondary sourcing, the in-depth reporting, the published assessments and evaluations that will prove that this is notable by our standards. Someone's opinion of how valuable something is is just not relevant here: what matters is if the subject meets, for instance, WP:NCORP. That is the only thing a closing administrator looks for. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Lokad page is arguably better than TradeGecko, TXT e-solutions, John Galt Solutions, Openbravo. Unlike all those companies, there are some notable contributions and technological achievements associated with Lokad (listed on the page). In particular the result at the M5 competition warrants - on its own - an inclusion. Joannes Vermorel (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's arguably worse then [list worse articles here]. That's not relevant. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Drmies, You reverted my change on Demand Sensing. This topic is one of the most absurd case of intellectual fraud in the last decade in supply chain. Just ask any supply chain professor... According to you, the role of wikipedia to embrace whatever nonsense random vendors are pushing? (Yes, they are my competitors, but it's still nonsense and fraud nonetheless) Joannes Vermorel (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: Meinolf71's only edits are to this AFD and two to Meinolf Sellmann, a guest speaker for Lokad. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Btw, insideopt.com has impressive contributions of its own. They are basically the one company that offers a stochastic (optimization) solver. Joannes Vermorel (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
fully agree with this statement. Lokad releases regularly discussions around their main area of expertise in Supply Chains and does tremendous work to educate the supply chain community around different approaches, strategies, theories and use cases. I bel ve that it fits the education mission of Wikipedia 197.18.182.181 (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ponyo, I have to ask a favor in such an obvious case--but could you? Drmies (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:, from the technical data, if there is a connection between the accounts, it would be of the coordinated variety.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could we even try to attempt at assessing the merits and demerits of the actual Lokad page? I argue it is already better than the quasi-totality of the pages listing enterprise software vendors, especially when it comes to supply chain. Joannes Vermorel (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vermorel, no one has done that except the nominator. And when almost half a dozen brand-new editors show up, out of nowhere, all making the same argument, well. On top of that, we have an editor who makes edits like this one but claims they're not advertising. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those editors are quite well-known among supply chain circles - and they have nothing to do with Lokad: not clients, not (ex)employees, not contractors. As far I am concerned, I do have an obvious tie with Lokad (quite explicit though). Joannes Vermorel (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed some of the PhD thesis of Lokad. Please note that those PhDs have been validated by independent institutions, those materials are peer-reviewed. Joannes Vermorel (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any valid reason why deletion is posited as justifiable here - as noted, the edit has "nothing much to say"? A legitimate company that Wikipedia users may wish to research and find links to do more research. If this is not valid, then why is it valid to have pages discussing the likes of Blue Yonder or Oracle or any other commercial software or supply chain entity? All that is needed to make it more "valid" is the time for others to contribute to the page - as noted on the page itself presumably by editor(s). It if is taken down there will be no means for it to be further developed and enhanced by the broader Wiki user community and thereby benefit Wiki users seeking to expand their knowledge of supply chain technology. Ian Wright Iangbusa (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Iangbusa: The nominator, Ednabrenze, clearly said the thing was sourced only to its own website and that they could not find any other coverage. So if you want to counter that, it's actually really simple: show them the proper coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Surely Oracle Corporation has that sourcing; I just looked, and there are over 200 references, many of the secondary. Everything else is really just irrelevant, including "may wish to research", which is a version of "but it's useful"--see WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oracle is a mega-corporation, one of the largest software company worldwide, and one of the oldest as well. This is an insane bar to met. The Lokad pages has several PhD listed, which are peer-reviewed by independent research institutions. Looking at the other wiki pages from comparable supply chain software vendors, none of that is present. The Lokad page is already above the standards met by those other wiki pages. Joannes Vermorel (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not an insane bar at all. A bit of coverage in newspapers and magazines? Drmies (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  They haven't been added to the article yet, but there are handful of sources that demonstrate Lokad's involvement in bitcoin/cryptocurrency software development:
  
  ———
  
  [5]https://news.bitcoin.com/developer-releases-cash-db-a-terab-project-fork-for-the-bch-network/
  
  ———
  
  Proposal to incorporate Lokad's work into Bitcoin Cash: [6]https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/bitcoincash.org/pull/173
  
  "Lokad has been the custodian of this guideline and the associated list of protocols, but at this point, it makes sense to move this piece to the community repository."
  
  This work became known as the "Lokad ID": [7]https://upgradespecs.bitcoincashnode.org/op_return-prefix-guideline/
  
  Lokad ID was successful enough that its adoption continued into other projects such as eCash: [8]https://github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc/blob/master/doc/standards/op_return-prefix-guideline.md
  
  ———
  
  There are also various secondary sources available that discuss Lokad's Tokeda proposal. One such example: [9]https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@yogeshwar888/bitcoin-unlimited-s-andrew-stone-analyzes-the-tokeda-project
  
  There are other Lokad proposals such as Ansible, Sakura, and Midas, although finding secondary sources for those requires more digging. Jason B. Cox (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  None of these are reliable secondary sources (the proposals themselves are primary, blogs are unreliable and most crypto sites have issues with independence), and none of them contain more than trivial coverage of Lokad itself. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  What is trivial coverage? All of these links contain commentary on R&D conducted at Lokad. Jason B. Cox (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Significant coverage should be about the company itself, not just the company's projects, and that coverage should be more just a sentence saying "this protocol was funded by Lokad". Disregarding that all the sources are primary, unreliable and/or not independent, notability of the company is not inherited from coverage of projects funded by the company. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Ok. Here are some secondary sources from independent, reliable sources:
  
  https://www.challenges.fr/partenaires/letalkentreprise/lokad-l-intelligence-artificielle-au-service-de-la-supply-chain_895600
  
  https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsofts-weakest-cloud-link-the-windows-azure-console/
  
  https://www.latribune.fr/journal/edition-du-1705/manager/technologie-innovation/404802/lokad-est-une-start-up-creee-par-un-groupe-de-cinq-informati.html
  
  https://static.latribune.fr/private/weekly/2013/20130628.pdf
  
  https://www.channelnews.fr/lokad-recoit-laward-windows-azure-platform-partner-pour-lannee-2010-7606
  
  And while not totally unbiased, this one deserves a mention on notability because it was a customer relationship turned investor: https://purusint.com/2018/05/23/lokad-case-study/ Jason B. Cox (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I looked at the Challenges piece while looking for sources and it identifies itself as sponsored. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 16:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Where does it identify itself as sponsored? Jason B. Cox (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  "Partenaire de Challenges" Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 22:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  My understanding is this refers to Le Talk Entreprise as a partner. LTE chose to do an interview with Lokad. I don't see anywhere that the piece itself was sponsored. Jason B. Cox (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm not sure what difference that would make to the piece being independent. Regardless, hovering over the "i" next to the title reveals "Ce contenu est proposé par notre régie publicitaire. Il n'a pas été écrit par notre rédaction." AKA "This content is provided by our advertising agency. It was not written by our editorial team." Beyond this, the piece reads like an ad, it's common sense.
  
  This article will certainly be deleted based on the discussion here, I'm sorry. It seems like an interesting topic. Hopefully it can garner some greater attention in the press, and Joannes can let a person with no affiliation with the company/industry write a Wikipedia article. Best of luck to you all. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 15:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just about zero coverage in independent, reliable sources. PhD theses that are funded by Lokad are not independent. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sources often have interviews with CEO, which impacts consideration:
- Some coverage in Le Monde [10], debatable SIGCOV, leaning pro.
- In L'Express, [11] has some coverage.
- La Tribune has SIGCOV here, although I am unsure if it's independent.
- Same here from La Tribune, [12], although it seems more independent.
- More than a mere mention in another La Tribune piece [13]. More than a mere mention in this La Monde piece.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 08:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding these sources, but I don't think any of them satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. E.g. the coverage in your first source is a single short paragraph that is mostly quoted from the founder. This La Tribune piece has the most coverage, but that's another paragraph mostly quoted from the founder, so not really satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree, although I think you are being overly strict with CORPDEPTH in the case of the La Tribune piece: ~150 words are not quotes, which goes far beyond 100 words. My concern is more with independence of the piece. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 08:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Page created by company CEO, citing non-independent sources or trivial coverage. It does not seem to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. MarioGom (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The proposed deletion of this article is unwarranted and detrimental to the dissemination of fact-based knowledge in the supply chain field. As a supply chain professional, I rely on transparent, data-driven insights to assess policies and technologies. The subject of this article provides precisely that—informative, factual, and well-documented perspectives that challenge conventional thinking in a profession that often lacks critical contrarian viewpoints. Moreover, the article details the technology and services offered by Lokad, a company making meaningful contributions to supply chain optimization. Its removal would be an immeasurable disservice to Wikipedia’s mission of providing the public with diverse, verifiable knowledge. Eliminating such content undermines Wikipedia’s role as an open repository of expertise and thought leadership. Milos Vrzic – M4st8rYodA (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: M4st8rYodA's only edit is to this AFD, and the account was created after this AfD was started. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Correct. I have left my name so feel free to get in touch if you wish to verify that I am a secondary source. M4st8rYodA (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand. Please see the note at the top of this page. It doesn't matter if someone created 500 accounts and all "voted" (it's not a vote) keep. It would have no impact whatsoever. This is a consensus building discussion, not a vote. Also, please see WP:SECONDARY. You are not a source. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Closing admin, please take account of several notes left for you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartathenian (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NORG. Not enough deep sources to prove notability.Nyasalones (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The sources above are very trivial mentions... This [14] is a discussion of their software in a journal article from Iran. I suppose many small sources are enough for a basic article. Oaktree b (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Le Monde piece above has about a paragraph on the company, with a quote from the CEO. Meh, it's not perfect, but probably enough to confirm they exist, in a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The La Tribune and Le Monde sources and the Iranian one found by Oaktree b seem to be just enough to satisfy WP:NCORP. While it's WP:BASIC, the sources do exist, so I think it's only fair to keep the article.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage by independent sources. The article is promotional and fails NPOV. Spartathenian (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan Diesel Space Runner RA

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

No references found. Promotional tone found. Gauravs 51 (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find photos and fan sites about this particular bus model. Article is now unsourced, so nothing to help show notability. Lack of sourcing Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Transportation, and Japan. Skynxnex (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to UD Trucks#Products as a WP:ATD-R since the model is listed there. S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 04:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to UD Trucks#Products per above. This article seems to have no JP article, which is a red flag and google search (JP) yield non usable source. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a decision between delete and redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartathenian (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heng Xiaofan

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

Seems to fail NPOL and GNG; not a notable public office holder Cinder painter (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and China. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zaur Osmayev

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

This footballer has no significant coverage in independent and reliable sources to establish notability. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 08:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 08:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. RealStanger43286 (Let's talk!) 09:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sesha Sindhu Rao

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

possibly an advertisement...almost all sources are unreliable..they did cite sources from The Times of India and The Hindu but that doesn't necessarily indicate significance. - AwfulReader^(talk) 07:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - AwfulReader^(talk) 07:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Added as many sources from youtube interviews on local Telugu news channels such as idream Media and NTV as possible. As the subject is an up and coming director, the citations are mostly from local news channels. Chakrabartyprateek14 (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.amazon.com/prime-video/actor/Sesha-Sindhu-Rao/amzn1.dv.gti.dcd0065f-a6a0-4659-8012-46280ec9766a/

Sindhu is also listed as a director on Prime Video and is a person of significance. Chakrabartyprateek14 (talk) 07:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: director of a notable film, Choosi Choodangaane; hence meeting WP:DIRECTOR. Needs trimming. -Mushy Yank. 11:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, United Arab Emirates, and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Shahidi

AfDs for this article:

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

This clearly doesn’t meet WP:N for BLPs. First, the editor who created it later admitted to being paid for it. Second, I checked the sources and they aren’t strong enough to support a BLP. It’s clearly a promotional, paid BLP. Fwiw, he's using this WP bio to promote himself. Stablecoin (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will abstain from voting. I know paid editing is controversial and I sure regret it, but that isn't a reason to delete it. What do you mean, I "later admitted to being paid for it"? I did so at the time, eight years ago. I haven't edited or looked at the article in years, but a quick Google search looks to me he's still a notable person. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guiffy SureMerge

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

Non-notable paid software product; fails WP:NPROD. The "reviews" only briefly describe the software features without any independent analysis. The only independent coverage is three sentences here, not enough for WP:NPROD. I couldn't find any other non-trivial coverage. Undeleted in 2014 after PROD. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plankton (Web video producer)

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

Non-notable video producer. Lack of reliable sourcing is clearly evident, and a WP:BEFORE doesn't show any promising results. Fails WP:NPRODUCER. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recoil (1998 film)

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

Was PROD’d for lack of general notability and WP:NFILM; an IP editor removed the PROD tag with the edit summary “Gary Daniels and Robin Curtis…” so now we go to AfD. The only mention I could find beyond the usual churn of IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes was a blog called Unknown Movies which does not cut the mustard in my opinion. Kazamzam (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Usually movies are easy. There are huge "movie guide" books with casts, productions, and potted summaries, and "DVD guides" and so forth. But this one appears to have escaped inclusion in any books that I can find. Uncle G (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: added things. A redirect to the director was warranted anyway and a PROD certainly not appropriate. Meets WP:NFILM. -Mushy Yank. 10:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 10:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Three of the references you added were to WordPress blogs and have been removed. I disagree that the sources provided show the sufficient coverage to establish notability per this language from the guidelines: “Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides.” (emphasis added) Kazamzam (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(the 2 sources hosted by WP have been removed but were used only to verify the film was called a B-movie). For the rest, PRECISELY, the OTHER sources I added in the Reception section are reliable and include "critical commentary"!!!!! And that's pretty obvious. -Mushy Yank. 11:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank - the other reference used was to a publication by Books on Demand which is generally not considered reliable or suitable to establish notability. Also removed. The references you included from TV Spielfilm and Filmdienst fall under the category of a capsule review ("a relatively short critique of a specified creative work") and Schnittberichte seems to be another blog. So I disagree that these are reliable or that they establish notability per the WP:NFILM criteria. Kazamzam (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even without the material you judged appropriate to remove during an AfD you yourself initiated (and that was, again, not used to establish notability but for verification, in an attempt to improve the page), I still think that we have enough with the 3 sources. Of course, Filmdienst is reliable, for example. If others think a Redirect is better, I also mentioned that possibility. Opposed to deletion. I have no further comment. -Mushy Yank. 14:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With sourcing, my rule of thumb is to only add sourcing that would be considered reliable by most or all Wikipedians. I tend to avoid SPS unless I can find where the sourcing or the writer has been cited as a RS multiple times in academic/scholarly sources (or other appropriate sourcing). The only exception would be for interviews, however I try to only add those after notability has been more firmly established. My rationale for this is that adding SPS or dubious sourcing can actually end up making an article seem less notable rather than more, even if it's being used to back up basic, non-controversial information. As far as capsule reviews go, I consider a capsule review to be a 1-3 sentence review where all but a handful of words are a plot summary.

Looking at the reviews in the article, Filmjahrbuch 2000 and TV Spielfilm are pretty short and would be considered a capsule review by most. Filmdienst is a bit of a wild card, as I get the impression that the snippet we see is a summary or a smaller part of a longer review given the clickable box that says "to the film review". Clicking that brings up a paywall and part of a first sentence ("Because his youngest son was looking for a...") that is slightly different than the first sentence in the snippet. So this one is probably usable - it also helps that out of the four sentences in the snippet, two are wholly review and not summary. That's one usable review, so then it becomes a question of what else is usable.

Schnittberichte is unusable. It's all user submitted content and while there are moderators, they are only looking for violations of the ToS. The site itself says that they are not liable for anything written by their editors, so that means that there's no editorial oversight of the content. In other words, view it as you would IMDb.

MovieWeb is Valnet. Much of their stuff is considered to be questionable as they tend to rely heavily on churnalism and AI content. WikiProject Video Games has a whole section about it as far as sourcing goes. The gist of that section is that Valnet sources are weak at best and are not great for establishing notability. I would say that MovieWeb would likely be considered situational per WP:VG's sourcing guide. With that in mind, this appears to be written by a staff member and there's a decent amount of discussion within the article to consider it a review of sorts. I would say that it's usable but not the strongest source.

Tiempo de hoy is unknown - I can't get a good glimpse in the snippet view to know if it is usable or not. The Video Source Book would be a capsule review, so a trivial source at best. Flickering Myth is a decent source, but it's a trivial mention so also can't establish notability.

That leaves us with two sources: Filmdienst and MovieWeb. Both could be considered reviews. Technically that's all we need to pass NFILM, two reviews, but it would be an extremely weak pass. I'm going to see what else I can find. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - thank you for your thorough analysis of the sources, ReaderofthePack. I had come to the same conclusion about the Filmdienst one being but a snippet of the full review that is behind a paywall, so that's one source to go towards WP:GNG or WP:NFO criterion 1 The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. I would say that it's a stretch to say that the MovieWeb review constitutes a "full-length review" (particularly as it's part of a top ten-style report). That leaves Tiempo de Hoy. We say that it's a weekly news magazine that, from 1987, tended to cover news about culture, entertainment, economy and sports. So it seems likely that it would have nationally-known film reviews in it. However, I too cannot see inside the book (which I guess is a compilation of published magazines) to establish whether it is a full review. I did also find this, in Chinese, also rather short. Taking all that into account, and given the age of the film the fact that any full reviews would more likely be in print media that is less likely to be online, I would give the benefit of the doubt and hence a weak keep. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, we're at a Weak Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Durrr Burger

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

While the article is comprehensive, it clearly fails WP:GNG. Durr Burger has only appeared in trivial mentions, and reception towards the fictional burger chain is not significant, only a minor Fortnite plot element. Its biggest claim to fame is an ARG that it featured in, but IMO the ARG has a bigger chance of being notable than the chain does (in a sort of I Love Bees way), even though I also do not see that passing GNG currently. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fortnite per Zx's reasoning and my own looking into the sources. As I said elsewhere I don't want to discourage the author but a lot of what's here feels overblown or trying to make sources work that are more discussing the parent element than the character/chain itself.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Zx and KFM. Subject is just largely non-notable, and though there is some good promo info, this does not need its own separate split out given a distinct lack of SIGCOV on the actual fictional brand. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 11:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - its a bit of a shame, as its relatively well written, but unfortunately, in more of a fan wikia kind of way. Maybe it can be moved to a fan wiki or something? Unfortunately, as is, it really has no independent notability outside of the video game its in. Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdisalam Aato

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

The WP:BIO of this article does not meet notability guidelines due to a lack of WP:N coverage in independent, WP:RS. QalasQalas (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bibliographies, Film, and Somalia. QalasQalas (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Georgia (U.S. state), and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject doesn't pass notability guidelines. I was unable to find reliable sources on the subject. Yolandagonzales (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soares (Bissau-Guinean footballer)

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

Failure to find significant coverage to support WP:GNG. Seems to have made one professional appearance four years ago and nothing in the news since then. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa and Luxembourg. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hasn't played enough to have enough written about him. Fails WP:GNG – RossEvans19 (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sabre Jet

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

This dab page has only two good entries. It should be replaced with a redirect to the jet fighter, with a hatnote to the film per WP:TWODABS. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but remove the Sabreliner. The nominator is correct that the only plane referred to by the moniker 'Sabre Jet' is the F-86. The F-100 is called a 'Super Sabre Jet' and the commercial plane is a 'Sabreliner'. However when the F86 and the F100 are referred to together they have been called 'Sabre Jets'. It is not unlikely that a reader looking for 'Sabre Jet' might be looking for the F-100. It is not particularly relevant to this discussion, but there is a not-yet-notable snowmobile called a 'Sabre Jet'. I agree that the F-86 is primary, so this page might be downgraded to (content restored to) Sabre Jet (disambiguation) and referenced by a hatnote at North American F-86 Sabre, with Sabre Jet becoming a redirect to the F-86. --Bejnar (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep I am generally in agreeance with Bejnar that the Sabreliner business jet could be removed from the list. I have now added the Australian CAC Sabre. Although based on the F-86, it was sufficiently different in its engine, armaments, fuselage modifications and performance that it warrant its own Wikipedia article. Readers from Australia, Malaysia or Indonesia are likely to commonly refer to this aircraft as the "Sabre jet" as they are to the F-86. Thus, I think this further supports the need for disambiguation. Dfadden (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I further note the existence of another article for the Canadair Sabre, as distinct from the F-86 which I will also add to the disambiguation list. Dfadden (talk) Dfadden (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Janata Dal

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

I couldn't find enough reliable independent sources with WP:SIGCOV to establish notability for this political party. I note that searching is tricky because socialist Janata Dal (where the adjective socialist describes Janata Dal) and Socialist Janata Dal (a splinter group of Janata Dal I think) are effectively the same thing to search engines! It is possible that there are decent sources not in English, and if they were added to the article I would willingly withdraw my nomination. I had previously redirected this article to List of Janata Dal breakaway parties but that has been widely contested by a COI editor and their related sock puppets in the past (see history), and now an IP user is reverting to the same poorly sourced material. Hence my nomination for deletion. I would support a redirect to List of Janata Dal breakaway parties but only if it were subject to extended-confirmed protection. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unida Christian Colleges

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

Has been unsourced since its inception in 2010. Fails WP:GNG Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you're confusing being unsourced with failing GNG. There appears to be an appropriate amount of potential citations in Google, Google News, and Google Scholar. I saw a substantial number of false positives in Newspapers search. I recommend a BEFORE search and reassess. Jclemens (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no confusion. There are no viable sources at all available even. All I got is the official website, the Facebook page, LinkedIn and generic university directories. There is an article from the Philippine Daily Inquirer but that is an advertorial for the Climate Action Project. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is more what I had in mind--things that aren't pieces about the institution, but everyday things you would expect to see substantiating it as what the article describes it to be. Jclemens (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete fruitless WP:RS search that passes WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World Championship of Legends Cricket

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 07:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Cricket. Vestrian24Bio 07:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same one deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Championship of Legends (Cricket) under a new name. Vestrian24Bio 08:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This championship is approved by the England and Wales Cricket Board, And this league is being played with the all veteran legend players of Cricket. Is in every prime media, hence if someone tries to find the information about it on Wikipedia, and the page doesn't exist there will give a false hope to the readers about its authenticity. I request to keep this profile. If it will be deleted it shows the violation of rights of the wikipedia readers and users to get the information about a notable profile on Wikipedia. Nomadluck (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomadluck

being played with the all veteran legend players of Cricket - see WP:NOTINHERITED.
page doesn't exist there will give a false hope to the readers about its authenticity - that's not how Wikipedia works, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Vestrian24Bio 08:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Vestrian24Bio none of these arguments for keeping are compliant with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on article deletion. WP:GNG is not actually met. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete as per my reasoning the last time this was deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Championship of Legends (that was a soft delete, so this page isn't WP:G4 eligible). Still doesn't have WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gourd Creek

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has previously been redirected per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gourd Creek and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mill Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary). It has recently been restored with one change: the addition of this source here. The issue with this source is that it never talks about Gourd Creek, even in passing ~~, and that the extrapolation of the relation of this Gourd Creek Cave to the creek is, strictly speaking, WP:OR~~.

post-nom edit There is now a second additional source here but only with passing mentions and thus irrelevant for determining notability. As I commented below, , the excerpts are on 24-25 (only half of a sentence on the latter page) and 34 of the PDF, which correspond to 36-37 and 46 of the Commons file. The mentions on p.46 are demonstrably in passing, and so aren't relevant for determining notability. The former excerpt places Gourd Creek in relation to certain caverns, which is also a passing mention.

As these changes are irrelevant, we return to the reasoning given in the previous AfDs to redirect this page; I'd like to quote, additionally, WP:GEONATURAL: for example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river. Iseult^Δxtalk to me 17:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all editors involved in the previous two AfDs per WP:APPNOTE: @Reywas92, JalenBarks, Djflem, Premeditated Chaos, Vsmith, and Oaktree b: Iseult^Δxtalk to me 17:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I reverted the redirect because it was done without respect to the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia: information. Specifically, the redirect was not accompanied with the corresponding merge of information, resulting in a piece of unreferenced info in the target article. I expanded it beyond information available except name and location. The accusation in OR is plain ridiculous, but I added a ref with no less than from Smithsonian, which directly link the creek and the cave --Altenmann >talk 17:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A malformed redirect does not call for overturning an AfD. The proper thing to do is to then add references to the target article. I understand that this article has, for some reason, been a flashpoint. Now, the Smithsonian ref added after I nominated this page. As it happens, it directs to a pdf download which is malformed on my system; could you quote the relevant parts? I'll strike the OR if proved. Iseult^Δxtalk to me 18:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

<shrug>A ridiculous anti-AGF statement; buy yourself a better system I could have said, but whatever. The work is by Gerard Fowke (1855-1933), so it is in public domain. I will upload it to commons. --Altenmann >talk 18:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

<hah>, it was already there: File:Bulletin_(IA_bulletin761922smit).pdf. --Altenmann >talk 18:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. A malformed redirect does call for the revert of a sloppy edit. Improper edits are reverted all the time. is to then add references, well, I made a different decision and implemented it. --Altenmann >talk 18:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! For reference, the excerpts are on 24-25 (only half of a sentence on the latter page) and 34 of the PDF, which correspond to 36-37 and 46 of the Commons file. The mentions on p.46 are demonstrably in passing, and so aren't relevant for determining notability. The former excerpt places Gourd Creek in relation to certain caverns, which is also a passing mention. I've struck the OR mention and have changed my nomination statement.

Regarding your other comments, I'm intrigued that you said that you could have made a flippant remark and chose to do it anyways. I don't see where I'm not AGF-ing, and the system comment isn't productive. In re the reversion, given that the consensus at AfD was to redirect the page, categorizing the redirect as an improper edit certainly is something. I appreciate your fait accompli, and that, I suppose, is what this discussion is for. Iseult^Δxtalk to me 19:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your "mention in passing" judgement. First, the Smithsonian source gives a number of important details about the creek, so you cannot call it simply "mention". Of course, the main subject is not the creek. Second, the description of the notable things found by the river is certainly relevant information. Certainly we will not write a separate article for each cairn found there, so IMO this page is a natural place to describe them; just look at Mississippi_River#Native_Americans. --Altenmann >talk 19:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I had a researcher's fun digging for information about this "Nothing Gulch" and realize that my position may be biased by a kind of "ownership feeling", so I am recusing from further discussion here per WP:COI :-) --Altenmann >talk 20:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what you call important I call routine. But I trust the community to have a healthy discussion about this and for the community to abide by the consensus found here. Iseult^Δxtalk to me 20:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Missouri. Skynxnex (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The stream is named and shown on USGS topo maps plus it passes under a US highway. Those bits should be all that is required for "notability". Now, with the archeological bits discussed above it has even more notability. Is Wiki running out of room? Or do we need some celebrity to go skinny-dipping in it ... Vsmith (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The stream is named and shown on USGS topo maps plus it passes under a US highway. Per WP:NGEO: A feature cannot be notable, under either WP:GNG or any SNG, if the only significant coverage of the feature is in maps, though rare exceptions may apply. In other words, maps contribute nothing to notability. I see no reason that passing beneath a US highway (or any other kind) should have any bearing on notability, and certainly no such exception is made in the NGEO guideline. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep: I suppose with the archeological items, it lends to notability... but honestly if the cave is on the NRHP, that would have more sourcing than this creek and is likely enough for an article about the site. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, obviously. I don't want to delete the information, and I resent the implication that my original redirect was in any way malformed or in opposition to Wikipedia's purpose. I do think that a few passing mentions do not demonstrate the kind of notability that demands the creek have its own article. Whether we merge it back up to Little Piney Creek (Missouri) or to an as-yet-created Gourd Creek Cave article, I don't care. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Weak only in the sense that this barely gets above WP:GEOFEAT, one of our more permissible guidelines - but it does clear that bar without touching. SportingFlyer T·C 06:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, merge or restore redirect? I'll note that while the "keep" !votes are more numerous, the rationales are for the most part not based on specific policies and guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This looks like a no consensus, but given the prior AfDs a consensus would help
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gilley's Dallas

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

No evidence of notability GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should add that Gilley's Dallas is not related to the earlier, famous Gilley's located in Pasadena, and has nothing to do with the movie Urban Cowboy. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Gilley's might be a lot of things, but lack of notability is not one of them. Urban Cowboy was filmed in the original Pasadena location. It was based In Pasadeba Texas 1970-1990. I think they closed the Pasadena location and are now operating out of Dallas since 2003. — Maile (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. Even says on their website the current Dallas location opened in 2003 and has kept the spirit of the original Gilley's alive. Unknownuser45266 (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Octoraro Lodge

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

The text does not show WP:SIGCOV: all sources are either very directly affiliated, or mention the subject in passing, or both. WP:DRAFTification was attempted, but the article was returned in pretty much the same shape. My own search did not yield anything significant either. Викидим (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hyperlocal scouting subgroup, not independently covered. Any relevant content without members' fluff belongs at Chester County Council. Reywas92^Talk 13:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marlana VanHoose

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

Non notable singer. No notable productions. Multiple awards but none are major, most from AMG, a "professional artists relations and protection firm" who "handle her career". Bombarded with sources which many having fake authors, fake titles like much of the OPs work. Only decent source is the CBS news feel good piece. Not enough for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Christianity, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 Jay Trophy

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Vestrian24Bio 04:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Nepal. Vestrian24Bio 04:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have coverage in regional languages and reliable sources can be in any language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godknowme1 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Vestrian24Bio 07:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No case has been made why the existing sources are insufficient.

Cortador (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Jay Trophy and delete. No evidence that the competition merits season by season articles. Wikipedia is not a sports/cricket almanac, or a mirror of external cricket databases. Not a useful redirect or search term so can be deleted after merge of encyclopedic content. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 International Masters League

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and ~~WP:GNG~~ WP:NSPORTSEVENT for standalone season articles. Vestrian24Bio 03:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 03:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The correct specific policy on this topic is WP:NSEASONS. There it is clear that notability is dependent on how much media coverage games get. The article topic features games which have each had coverage (in depth match reports) in major national newspapers. Taking just the second game as an example (as a stronger test case because it doesn't involve the hosts India, who featured in the first), one can find detailed reports in The Hindu, SportsMax, Outlook, Business Standard, Hindustan Times and so on. Detailed reports are key because they go way beyond what might be described as WP:ROUTINE, which is where people try to derive notability for sporting events and seasons from the mere reporting of match scores. So WP:NSEASONS appears clearly to be met. I would note that the nominator has proposed this AfD a bare 89 minutes after their AfD for International Masters League (the page detailing the competition as a whole) was closed as no consensus - a discussion in which I was involved (but very few others). It may help people to read that discussion there. OsFish (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~WP:NSEASONS~~ WP:NSPORTSEVENT says, "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game" - even if you don't agree with it these are all still WP:ROUTINE coverage.

What you're doing here is just WP:ONLYGUIDELINE and WP:ATTP. Vestrian24Bio 07:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:NSEASONS does not say that. You've read the wrong policy. You're quoting WP:NSPORTSEVENT, the policy for individual games. WP:ROUTINE does not apply as I made clear above, because the policy there says "Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine" (emphasis added). I explicitly linked to detailed coverage, not mere reporting of sports scores. The argument you make implies that ANY newspaper coverage of sports matches cannot be considered relevant for notability of a tournament. That's quite clearly against WP:NSEASONS which attaches notability to the extent of coverage of games in general. OsFish (talk) 08:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's my mistake. But, none of WP:NSEASONS apply to this; it's for article such as 2025 Chennai Super Kings season and 2025 Sydney Roosters season (Individual season articles for top-level professional teams). Vestrian24Bio 08:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you simply want to go by WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, which is the presence of discriminating, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, independent of the topic, then notability is clearly met. Uncontroversially so. OsFish (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some changes to my opening comment now. Vestrian24Bio 11:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORTSEVENT does not apply here because that is about a single game or a "series" in the North American sense of a championship decider where the top or final two teams playing a short series of matches against each other. As the policy says, "The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league". This article here is about a tournament featuring several teams. WP:SIGCOV is easily met. There are multiple RS directly and solely about the tournament. (SIGCOV is a subset of GNG). OsFish (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another of these non-notable masters cricket tournaments. The coverage of this is all trying to claim notability by notable players, which is a clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to an example of such claims? I see absolutely no claims based upon the notability of players. OsFish (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HICC Pet

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP - sourced to press releases and advertorials.

Note: Initially a redirect, seeking consensus for deletion/restoration of the redirect.-KH-1 (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the page isn't kept, it should be deleted, and HICC should get redirected to Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect: Per nom; clearly non-notable pet supply company. I was unable to find any independent coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Companies, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Banu Mutallib

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

no significant coverage, fails the general notability guideline. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 01:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Banu Muttalib". The current article name appears to be a typo; "Banu Muttalib" has quite a few hits. I wouldn't necessarily object to deletion, but it seems like this could be a decent article if someone put time into it. Anerdw (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced one-sentence stub. Should've been sent to draftspace instead of being nominated here. No reason to keep, at least not in its current state. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as it stands now.Nyasalones (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolás Chaparro

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

Declined prod. 4 of the 5 sources are databases. The only third party source appears to be now dead. A search for sources only yielded namesakes. Fails WP:NATH and WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Paraguay. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added an archive link for the third party source; nevertheless, it only lists Chaparro as one of Paraguay's olympians. Coeusin (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Bondi

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bradley Bondi (2nd nomination)

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

Subject was previously nominated for deletion [15] (as 'Bradley J. Bondi') in August 2024 and deleted on September 6. Besides the nominator, three other editors participated in that deletion discussion with all three arguing for its deletion due to a lack of sources establishing the subject's notability. Not much has changed in the last six months that would cause Bradley Bondi to become notable; although his notable sister's profile has grown as she is now Attorney General of the United States, notability is not inherited. Damon Killian (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be promotional, too short, quick and as if written by same user whose biography is available here. The article also do no follow WP:NPOV in clear way. Either this article must be deleted or using reliable source it must be rewritten. Sys64wiki (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree putting it in draft for now? Sys64wiki (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Florida, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abele Ambrosini

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

Fails WP:BIO. Being one of millions of soldiers killed in World War II isn't enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable as a recipient of the Gold Medal of Military Valor. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Italy. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a translation from the Italian Wikipedia. Notable as a recipient of the Gold Medal of Military Valor. — Maile (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject, Abele Ambrosini, appears to meet WP:MILPERSON due to his recognition with the Gold Medal of Military Valor. A WP:BEFORE search could uncover further coverage in Italian historical records or military archives, supporting his notability beyond a passing mention. The article may need expansion, but the subject documented distinction justifies retention. NXcrypto Message 05:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Gold Medal is two levels down from the highest award. Ordinarily it requires an award of the highest level, such as the Medal of Honor or the Victoria Cross, or multiple awards of the second level to make a soldier notable by itself. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has the Gold Medal of Military Valor. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. The Gold Medal of Military Valor does not satisfy WP:ANYBIO #1. Mztourist (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Muhammad's conquest of Mukryan

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

This page has been deleted once in Wikipedia see https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir_Muhammad%27s_conquest_of_Mukryan