Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

if page isn't updating.

Guide to deletion

Abdullah Al-Sobeai

Abdullah Al-Sobeai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I have found no significant coverage per WP:ATHLETE. SL93 (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Saudi Arabia. SL93 (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Prajal Regmi

Prajal Regmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Regardless of how this turns out, thank you Flyingphoenixchips for the reminder about WP:ATD-T. For reference, the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (people). I think the only sources for this biography that have significant coverage (Honei, Vanguards of Wesea, SEED Cell, and iU) are either not independent or not reliable. Honei could be independent. I consider them to be basically human interest reporting, which is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and I don't see evidence of reliability (like editorial oversight) to refute that generalization. Vanguards of Wesea is – per its website – an initiative of the Wesean High School Students Forum. It looks like its stories are produced from nominations that are then assessed according to that website's definition of notability. Despite the nominations being reviewed by editors, I am skeptical of that source's independence from the subject. SEED Cell and the iU interview don't seem independent. In my search for sources, I only found newsheads.in. That source ended up on the spam blacklist, so I won't spend too much time evaluating it. Overall, I don't see evidence of notability. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 23:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 23:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Sikkim. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Yep, deletion discussion would be the best course of action to get a consensus on notability! :) For now I have added the additional references! I am kinda on the grey area on whether the subject is fully notable or not either. However would appreciate input from other editors here. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

List of veterans critical of the Iraq War

List of veterans critical of the Iraq War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Though this overall concept may be notable, this is currently a unexplained list of people of various types: actor, politicians, musicians, etc; and is largely unsourced / OR. It appears this list was originally created out of a category in 2006. Natg 19 (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Military. Natg 19 (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iraq and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - As is, this really tells us nothing. Instead, create a Category for this issue (see: Help:Category). Then connect all bios that are people who are therein mentioned and sourced as critical of the war. — Maile (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - Doesn't make sense and reads like a list, not like an article. .cynthialune (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The Gianakos-Safos Collection

The Gianakos-Safos Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A private archive that fails WP:N and WP:SIGCOV. A search sources shows one local news article that says that the archive was the inspiration for a documentary (not the subject of it)[1] and a writeup in Who's Who.[2] Article created by an editor with a (now) acknowledged COI. Vegantics (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Nothing comes up in Gscholar, Books or Jstor. I can only find primary sourcing, suggesting this isn't a notable academic endeavour. If no journals have used it/written about it, might be TOOSOON. This seems like PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  This is tricky one. If there is a pure technical reason why something is adjudged to be TOOSOON, and the collection does not fulfil the requirements, then regrettably rules are rules for a reason, especially for a knowledge-base with the acclaim, and importance of Wikipedia, then I have nothing to comment. However, it would be helpful if these requirements could be communicated to the author. From my side, all I can say is that the collection is legitimate, real, enough to inspire a feature-length documentary, and mesmerising to behold. I have not checked, I don't know hot to, but if not utterly unique, it must stand as one of the great literature collections of all time. 178.59.82.40 (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  Well, inspiring a movie isn't quite what we're looking for. Having a large collection of stuff isn't quite notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Hi there, it is Nikkos J. Frangos here (I am happy to confirm this in any way you deem appropriate). I would like to reply to the issues raised if I may. It is correct to point out that the collection inspired the making of the Pulitzer at 100. If one has the grace and good fortune in this lifetime to witness this collection, it could do little else than inspire. I do not see where in the Wikipedia article it claims any different, however. I do not see, specifically, where it claims that the collection was the subject of the documentary. Is it misleading perhaps due to the placement of the section on The Pulitzer at 100 which renders it perhaps ambiguous? And this could be better stated so as not to mislead?

Regarding the COI, I do not know what this could be, but I am quite confident that I could assist in this regards. The author has know COI as far as I am aware.

Thank you. Very interesting discussion. Great to see the scrutiny. Very grateful to discuss. I have no personal interest in the collect by the way. 178.59.82.40 (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, This discussion is to decide if the Gianakos-Safos Collection currently meets the minimum notability requirements to have a Wikipedia article. While the collection may be very meaningful, Wikipedia's goal is not to provide information on every topic under the sun. There are policies against original research and requirements that there is already significant reliable secondary coverage of a topic before the article is written. Right now, I have not found sources that can demonstrate notability in this way and that is why I believe the article should be deleted. My point in saying that the collection inspired the documentary was to clarify that the documentary is not about the collection, and thus does not serve as they type of coverage required. Perhaps in the future it will have more coverage and then I would support the creation of an article on topic.

A secondary concern is that the person who wrote the article said that they were asked to do so by the Gianakos-Safos Collection. While they may have good intentions, it creates additional hurdles to ensuring a good article because they are inherently biased and likely to do original research rather than writing to meet Wikipedia standards. If you'd like to discuss this further, please post on my talk page. Vegantics (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, as far as I can tell, the Pulitzer at 100 is notable enough for an article, but the collection is not. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - if it can't be accessed, and the sourcing is terrible, and we can't verify even its existence, then it's not a collection nor an archive, it's a hoarder situation. There are reality TV shows for that sort of thing, but not an encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  are you certain that the conclusion to your, indeed correct, statements (poor sourcing, inability to verify its existence), is that it is a "hoarder situation"? If not, you should not be making this claim / inference. Indeed, if you knew how these books were sourced, and what they in fact are, you could not make such a claim. It is more productive to stick to the facts (see below helpful comment). 141.237.200.71 (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. The question here is not whether or not the collection has any worth, but rather is the collection notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. To be very honest it's usually extremely difficult to establish notability for collections, as the vast majority are held privately or by corporations - meaning that notability-granting reliable sources are less likely to pay attention to them because they're not easy to access. Collections are also, by their very nature, kind of niche to a certain extent because the collection has a theme. For example, the Mile High collection is one of the more infamous collections out there but is still really only covered by comic and niche publications because while comics are popular, the appeal isn't so widespread that a media outlet would risk covering something that only a potentially small portion of their readers would have an interest in perusing. I must also note that the collections do not inherit notability (WP:NOTINHERITED) from the scope of the collection or the contents. A book within the collection can be notable or the scope could focus on a notable award, but that notability has no impact on the collection's notability.

Now, moving on to the sourcing aspect, the sourcing is often a big issue with many articles because Wikipedia is fairly strict with what is considered to be a reliable source that can help establish notability. For example, an article about the collection in the New York Times would be a reliable source that could help establish notability. A primary source, however, would not be able to establish notability regardless of where it was posted. An example of that would be say, a press release, the collection website, or an article posted by one of the people involved with the collection.

The film could only really help establish notability if two factors were met: one is that the film itself would need to pass NFILM. The other is that the film would need to cover the collection in great depth. Even then that would only help count towards notability and not be enough to establish that the collection is independently notable of the film. The catch to all of this of course, is that if the collection was covered in that much depth there would be plenty of reliable, notability-giving sources out there that cover the film. So far the only source for that is the Tribune Today. Not a terrible source, but it's not enough on its own.

I suppose a possible workaround could be to have an article on the documentary as it does appear to pass NFILM and have a sentence or two about the collection in the article's film development section. However that said, I'd like to have more sourcing where the director talks about how it was an inspiration. I'm not saying that it wasn't an inspiration, just that it would be nice to have more out there to really help justify including it in the film article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

this is very helpful. a genuine attempt to guide, create understanding, and advise. 141.237.200.71 (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to focus on The Pulitzer at 100. This is notable enough, given the reviews in Hollywood Reporter (here), New York Times (here), Los Angeles Times (here) and Film Journal International (here). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Redirect. I've created a stub/skeleton version of the article at The Pulitzer at 100. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm unsure if the "Retarget" opinion is actually a Keep in disguise.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Nutellagate

Nutellagate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and New York. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge with Columbia University: a brief mention there is fine, there is no sustained coverage, 10 plus years later. Interesting anecdote perhaps. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge with Columbia University per WP:NEVENT. Very limited duration of coverage and no enduring significance either. Best suited for a brief mention in the 21st century history section of the Columbia article. Flip^andFlopped ツ 01:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I strongly oppose merging: a flash in the pan, lightweight news story would be given far too much weight in the history of a 300 year old, very influential university. I hope editors will consider deletion. I also don't really support a redirect, as searching "Nutellagate" yields numerous controversies given the name, including prominently the use of palm oil. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 01:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  Rollinginhisgrave, it seems that the sole basis WP:NEVENT fails here is WP:LASTING, because there was no enduring coverage. However, given that the 21st century history section of the Columbia article is relatively slim now anyways (probably merits expansion), and given that it did have substantive, quite in-depth coverage in multiple very reputable sources at the time (the New York Times, the Atlantic, CBS, New York Magazine, etc), a one-sentence mention strikes me as appropriate weight. Flip^andFlopped ツ 02:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  As the coverage in those sources is purely contemporary, they should be considered WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Them being primary doesn't mean they're inaccurate, but it does mean they are not really able to be relied upon to establish the significance of the event to the history of Columbia University as a subject (i.e. whether it's DUE). Further, the 21st century history being short is a feature, not a flaw. It's got a 300 year history. Covering the last 20 in great detail is WP:RECENTISM. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. What we have here is a news cycle lasting for a whole three days. A more textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS is hard to find. There is no relevance in a broader context which makes me oppose a merge. Geschichte (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree that a merge to Columbia University would be undue weight. A merge to History of Columbia University would also be undue weight. Three other merge targets are Nutella, Columbia Daily Spectator, and Cecilia Reyes (journalist). I recommend a merge to Cecilia Reyes (journalist) whose article already discusses her reporting on the Nutellagate incident. Cunard (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks @Cundard: for the alternate merge locations. What information are you seeing in this article that you would like to merge into Cecilia Reyes? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 05:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  These two sentences could be merged to Cecilia Reyes (journalist):

  The high volume of Nutella consumption raised questions around food waste, dining hall meal plan costs, exorbitant tuition rates, and consumerism.[1][4][5] The story quickly garnered national attention, and was reported the next day in The New York Times.[6]

  It is possible that even more content could be merged (such as the university's response) but that is up to editorial discretion. Cunard (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  I would support this ATD if the Pulitzer section could be expanded so more emphasis was given to that rather than a student newspaper scandal. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 07:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete was initially going to propose a merge with Columbia University but reading about the event and looking at the university article this doesn't seem significant enough to be mentioned. Agree with Rollinginhisgrave. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Opinion divided between Merge and straight out Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS - this [3] sort of mention is the closest I can find to coverage beyond 2013. I advocate deletion instead of merge because Cecilia Reyes (journalist) already has sufficient information about her reporting of this incident, and a merge to Columbia University would constitute undue weight to what ultimately seems to be a flash-in-the-pan. Zzz plant (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge to History of Columbia University. A short mention on that article would be fine. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

CaDA Bricks

CaDA Bricks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys and China. /over.throws/^✎ 16:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete I would vote for a redirect here Double Eagle Group but the manufacturer appears not yet notable. I cannot find anything good to be added to the page. Norlk (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Ness, Daniel (2022). Block Parties: Identifying Emergent STEAM Thinking Through Play. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-367-56445-2. Retrieved 2025-04-13 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "Cada Bricks is a brand of play bricks that is produced by the Double Eagle Industry China Ltd. Double Eagle is located in Shantou, a city in the province of Guangdong in China, and is an internationally recognized Chinese toy brand for its remote control toy cars and trucks. Established in 2016, the Cada product line became a well-recognized building brick toy brand in mainland China by 2020. Currently, the Cada Bricks toy is also a popular LEGO alternative in Germany and Russia. Cada Bricks consist mostly of interlocking plastic bricks that are compatible with other internationally renowned brick brands. Cada has also worked diligently to create its own set of designs. The building bricks series include, but are not limited to, super-cars, military themes, robots, construction and architecture, and other STEM based educational sets."

  2. Groves, Jack (2024-12-19). "CaDA Master Mercedes-AMG One review: powered brick kit is a bargain… and a real challenge". Car. Archived from the original on 2025-04-13. Retrieved 2025-04-13.

     The review notes: "I say ‘brick set’ because, while it may look incredibly like Lego, it’s not. It’s from CaDA Bricks – a brand that’s part of the Double Eagle Group that manufactures toys in China. CaDA has been producing brick sets for a few years now, but few have been officially licenced. This Mercedes-AMG One kit we’ve built has actually been officially licenced by Affalterbach and is brimming with details and clever touches. ... Because it is. This is a 1:8-scale set, comprising of 3295 pieces and is part of the CaDA Master series – largely equivalent to some of the most detailed and intricate Lego Technic sets on the market. ... CaDA is also fighting Lego on price, undercutting many 1:8-scale Lego Technic sets significantly as it hovers around the £200 mark; a Lamborghini Sian retails for around £390, as does a Lego Technic Ferrari Monza SP3. Add to the fact that the AMG One is powered, and CaDA makes a strong case for itself."

  3. Wang, Jun 王俊 (2023-08-23). "国产积木走进深圳寻常家" [Domestic building blocks enter ordinary homes in Shenzhen] (PDF). Yangcheng Evening News (in Chinese). Retrieved 2025-04-13.

     The article notes: "凭借出色的产 品创新，咔搭积木的科技积 木跑车系列特别是1：8的 积木超跑系列获得了一大 波的忠实粉丝。 谈到选择在深圳设立子 公司的原因，杨烁航坦言，刚 开始做积木产品的时候，很难 招到合适的人，在深圳设立办 事处后就解决了这个问题，特 别是设计和研发的人才。... 另一方面，咔 搭积木离用户群体更加近，也 可以更好地了解消费者需 求。此外，深圳政府的资金补 贴和扶助政策，助推国产企业 发展更好的进步。 尽管国产积木品牌正在 崛起，但与国外知名品牌相 比，还是有不小的差距。"

     From Google Translate: "With outstanding product innovation, CaDa Bricks' technology building block sports car series, especially the 1:8 building block supercar series, has gained a large number of loyal fans. Talking about the reason for choosing to set up a subsidiary in Shenzhen, Yang Shuohang admitted that it was difficult to recruit suitable people when he first started making building block products. After setting up an office in Shenzhen, this problem was solved, especially the design and R&D talents. ... On the other hand, CaDa Bricks is closer to the user group and can better understand consumer needs. In addition, the Shenzhen government's financial subsidies and support policies have helped domestic enterprises to develop better progress. Although domestic building block brands are on the rise, there is still a big gap compared with well-known foreign brands."

  4. Less significant coverage:
     1. Linnane, Bill (2025-01-16). "Bill Linnane: My daughter wanted a car for Christmas, she didn't get one – but she gets me as a taxi service instead. I've stumbled upon something very precious while acting as glorified taxi service for my 22-year-old daughter". Irish Independent. ProQuest 3155494320. Archived from the original on 2025-04-13. Retrieved 2025-04-13.

        The article notes: "And so it was on Christmas morning, she found herself unwrapping her heart's desire - or at least a 1:24 scale model of it. For in typical dad-joke style, I had bought her a Suzuki Jimny from the not-especially well-known brand CaDA bricks (one of those 'compatible with Lego' blocko brands), which she would have to assemble herself and which, I helpfully suggested, she could then drive around her desk making 'vroom vroom' noises. Somehow my incredibly wellthought-out prank gift didn't seem to cheer her up, although she did manage an eye roll and weak smile of bemused disappointment. In her defence, she had just come off working a night shift and, as she was heading back in for another shift later that evening, her energy levels were pretty low, which might explain her lack of gratitude."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow CaDA Bricks (simplified Chinese: 咔搭积木; traditional Chinese: 咔搭積木) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. We could use more opinions on the newly discovered sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Tiki Pets

Tiki Pets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Companies. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note that whether or not this is actually notable OP is wrong... There are reliable sources, both on the page and across the web... Whether or not we should have a stand alone page or merge to General Mills or an associated page is still an open question and I would probably lean towards merge but the assertion that no reliable sources exist is patently false. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back I only see across the web General Mills acquires Whitebridge Pet Brands for $1.45 billion, General Mills to acquire Whitebridge Pet Brands for $1.45 bln and similar ones Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  And you don't see Tiki Pets in those articles? Because I do... And the sources appear reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  reliable sources means reliable independent in-depth coverage. Passing mentions don't count Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  Reliable sources means reliable sources. If you mean independent in-depth coverage you have to say that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  thank you! I changed the initial rationale for deletion. Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  Its still wrong, you need to add significant, in-depth, something like that before reliable. I don't think you understand that trivial and routine coverage can still be reliable, it just doesn't count towards notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The Russian Assassins

The Russian Assassins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and United States of America. /over.throws/^✎ 16:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Even if it lasted for a year, it still attracted enough coverage to warrant a standalone article here. In principle, as David used to mention , Delete is reserved for when nothing else can be done to save/salvage. Information purged is information lost. This is apolitical, informational, and non controvertial (in wiki sense) , hence the suggestion. Devopam (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Operation Overgrow

Operation Overgrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Same as nominator, I could not find any reliable sources discussing this so-called operation. Some blogs, some reddit threads, some facebook groups but that's about it.

Craig Ritter

Craig Ritter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, Arizona, and California. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 16:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• My searches have not so far turned up any SIGCOV. The commonness of the name makes searching difficult. Aside from playing at Arizona State (1991-92) and pro (1995-98), I also found references to a Craig Ritter being a football coach at Defiance College c. 2009 -- may or may not be the same person. Cbl62 (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: All I'm finding right now are transactional announcements and brief mentions like [[4]]. Unless someone else can find some WP:SIGCOV, this is probably a delete. Let'srun (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Note that the article has been significantly expanded since the nomination. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Are there now sources that can be considered SIGCOV? Cbl62 (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need some editors casting a "vote" for what should happen with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Rainer Strecker

Rainer Strecker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Chris Macdonald (scientist)

Chris Macdonald (scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

 Comment: Has anyone seen if he passes one of the criteria for WP:PROF? The Prof Test is an alternative method of showing notability, so please ping me. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a young professor who has just gotten an under-40 years old award. The "extensive coverage" of his work is the newspaper reports generated from a single University of Cambridge press release. He appears to have only that single paper in Google scholar, which has mixed him up with a Canadian business professor. It is too soon for him to have an article. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete:.

• Dr Macdonald has multiple publications: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3880-6563
• His coverage was not the result of a ‘single University press release’ – it was the featured research story on the University homepage – and independently of that, it was covered by BBC, ITV, etc.
• He clearly passes the criteria for WP:PROF (of which you only need to meet one):

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline: His recent article is “in the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric”.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level: His research won the National Innovation Award, the Digital Health Award, and the 40 Under 40 Award.

3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association: Dr Macdonald is a Fellow at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of the Institute of Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity: His research has appeared in over 100 international news outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayneDavis07 (talk • contribs)

JayneDavis07, our criteria can be confusing for a new editor. Most researchers have multiple publications. What matters is not how many they have published but how other researchers have responded to those publications by citing them in their own papers. That is how we determine significant impact. Most awards, and definitely not young investigator awards, are not what we mean by "highly prestigious". Having newspapers cover ones research when publicized by their employer is common and not considered "substantial impact". "Fellow" is a term used in many different ways. In Macdonald's case the first Fellow is one of the terms used by Cambridge for their employees, so does not qualify. The second Fellow is just the name of the level of dues paying member of the ICRS, not an honorary award given for major contributions to a field. Macdonald is a promising researcher, and may well qualify according to WP:NPROF in the future, but not now. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

For the impact of his publications see here. He has only been publishing for a few years. We would need to see over a hundred citations per paper for impact, but he is just starting out so hasn't had time to develop. He does have 14 papers in Google Scholar, but his latest one is linked to another author. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Do not delete:

Fellow in the Cambridge system is not merely a term for employees. Fellows are voted in by the Governing body and are special honours for “distinguished, learned, or skilled individuals in academia, medicine, research, and industry.” There are different types of Fellowship at Cambridge (Visiting Fellow, Research Fellow, Fellow Commoner, Bye-Fellow, etc) – Dr Macdonald holds a full unrestricted permanent Fellowship and as a result is a full voting member of the Governing Body of the University – the highest honour.

Under the criteria for WP:PROF, Academics only need to meet one of 8 conditions.

1. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

With regard to condition 1 – Dr Macdonald won the 40 Under 40 Award in the Science category. The award has two rounds of voting – the first is an expert panel, the second is a public vote – the award programme is at the national level and is for the nation’s most influential and accomplished leaders.

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

With regard to condition 7 – Dr Macdonald developed and launched a virtual reality public speaking platform to help individuals overcome speech anxiety. He made the platform fully open access, and it is used by people around the world. It is a first-of-its-kind platform – the only to be free and accessible on all platforms and operating systems. Accordingly, it received widespread global media attention - it was covered in over 100 media outlets - including The Times, The Guardian, ITV, BBC, etc, etc. This is outside of a conventional academics remit.

It makes the academic “significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice”.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JayneDavis07 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete I have not been able to find evidence that Chris Macdonald meets the criteria for GNG or NPROF. As noted by StarryGrandma, most of the publicity appears to be based on a press release from cambridge. Public press about a single VR program is not indicative of academic notability.

• Responding specifically to arguments above concerning NPROF:
  • 1. AltMetric is not good for determining academic notability as any mention on any site online can improve altmetric. If we're considering notability based on academics, then his work needs to be highly cited by other academics, which it is not.
  • 2. The awards he has won do not appear prestigious on a national or international level, names notwithstanding. Think Nobel prize (international) or something like a Priestly medal (national chemistry award in US). I'm not even sure which 40 under 40 list he was included under because there are so many of these lists today and the specific list is mentioned nowhere in his bios. A public vote for an award is also not good criteria for academic notability.
  • 3. Elected member/fellow of a society. A fellow at a uni is not the same thing. Reading through the types of fellow at Lucy Cavendish College, it sounds like he is just a professor (not the same thing as Cambridge wide fellowships --- each college has their own processes). Nor is being a "fellow" at a non-profit think tank funded by a bunch of corporations in the name of "responsibility"
  • 7. Unlikely over 100 international news outlets covered his virtually reality public speaking VR work independently. This is also definitely WP:TOOSOON as the impact of the work that was released a month ago is not yet known.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Margaret Erin Fleming

Margaret Erin Fleming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Texas. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Budd Wiener Park

Budd Wiener Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• There are two Eastsider articles on this. The first from 2010 states that they couldn't find out any information about the park; and the second from 2024 cites the first explaining that it is still a mystery area with "just about nothing on it". I found another potential source, which turned out to cite and concur with The Eastsider's documentation that there no recorded knowledge to be had. If there's no knowledge of the thing, other than it is an area whose name and history cannot be explained, we cannot have an encyclopaedia article. Uncle G (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect >>>List of parks in Los Angeles, where the municipal park is listed. Djflem (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there more support for Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect >>>List of parks in Los Angeles, where the municipal park is listed. As per Djflem. Cxbrx (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Harun Izhar

Harun Izhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Bangladesh. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 21:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Crime. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. ZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 03:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment He was arrested three times. Could be notable under WP:GNG.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Vinegarymass911: Being arrested on just three occasions does not, in itself, constitute notability—particularly when the arrests lack in-depth coverage. There is no reliable evidence indicating that these incidents had any significant impact or received national attention.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 22:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep A leader of senior leader of Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh, a notable of Islamist organization whose leader is the minister of religious affairs, and director of the well known Jamiatul Uloom Al-Islamia Lalkhan Bazar. The arrests themselves have recieved widespread coverage. Based on the sources in the article, the person's positions, and google searches, I believe this person is notable. Not a good person based on his actions but notable for an article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The Central Committee of Hefazat comprises over 200 leaders. Merely holding a leadership position in a notable organization does not establish individual notability, see WP:NOTINHERIT. He is not the Director of Jamiatul Uloom Al-Islamia Lalkhan Bazar; this claim is incorrect. He serves as the Assistant Director. All media coverage related to him appears to be routine reporting or breaking news. In-depth, substantial coverage is required to demonstrate notability.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 17:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Lock It Up (Whethan song)

Lock It Up (Whethan song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Finding no articles via google news about the song. There is a hit on EDM.com, but that is about the song's album and not about the song. Charts dont equal notability, and I can't find any other coverage besides this. Locust member (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The only editor casting a "vote" doesn't leave any justification for their vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Fails WP:NSONG. Redirect to Midnight (Whethan album). Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Murder of Neha Hiremath

Murder of Neha Hiremath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and India. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep There is coverage at the time of the event and more information 3 months later. Here is another update from February 2025 - https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/neha-hiremath-s-family-demands-cbi-probe-into-2024-murder-case-101738609866972.html An event with media updates at three points in time is sustained coverage. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Paul Barbeau

Paul Barbeau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article subject requests deletion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and as a relatively unknown person per WP:BIODEL. See VRT Ticket 2025041610019291. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Citizens Co-op

Citizens Co-op (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This topic does not appear to meet notability criteria, specifically WP:AUD. Based on my searches, coverage appears to be limited to local news outlets, and the article relies heavily on self-published sources. If stronger sources exist, they have not yet been cited in the article. (first AfD nomination, feedback welcome) – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 22:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Florida. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 22:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Highway 4 shooting

Highway 4 shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not pass WP:NEVENT, less than a week long period of coverage. Prod removed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Terrorism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Under most article standards and in most other nations, this is a very WP:MILL event and the article title is so vague that it doesn't inform anyone of its location. Nathannah • 📮 23:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: The article was deleted less than an hour into the nomination by Liz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Since the deletion reason simply pointed to this nomination, which normally only happens as part of closing a discussion, I'm not sure if this was intended or erroneous — there does not appear to be any reason to indicate the week-long discussion period is not necessary, especially when there has already been a declined PROD. (Normally, if an article at AfD is speedy deleted during the AfD discussion period, the deletion reason reflects the relevant speedy criterion, and generally nothing else.) I have no other opinion or further comment, at least for now. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Sangrana

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Battle of Sangrana
• Articles for deletion/Battle of Sangrana (2nd nomination)

Battle of Sangrana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

"The Great Gurus of the Sikhs: Guru Tegh Bahadur & Govind Singh" does not mention this battle at all. Hari Ram Gupta (1984) dedicates 7 pages to this battle[5]. Madra, Amandeep Singh; Singh, P. (2016) mentions in footnotes that the first conflict between Sikhs and Mughals was fought in 1628 and provides no further details[6]. Daljeet Singh, Kharak Singh (1997) does not mention this battle. Gandhi, Surjit Singh (1978) covers the Battle of Amritsar (1634) and not the Battle of Sangrama fought in 1628. This article is perhaps conflating the two because all other sources are covering the second battle which we already have an article on, from the reading of the sources it seems the incident at Sangrana in 1628 (I doubt there was even a battle in 1628) served as a background/provocation to the Battle of Amritsar (1634), therefore I think it can be covered over there. Ratnahastin (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

2024 Hadera stabbing

2024 Hadera stabbing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not pass WP:NEVENT, every source here is from the day it happened. Prod removed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

2024 Tarqumiyah shooting

2024 Tarqumiyah shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not pass WP:NEVENT, less than a week long period of coverage. Prod removed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Terrorism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge into 2024 Israeli military operation in the West Bank, potentially in the Aftermath section (which admittedly may not be the best target). WP:RS place this shooting in the context of this ongoing military operation and the resultant spillover into the southern West Bank. For example, [7], [8], among others. Longhornsg (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  Fine by me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  Cool (and it's already covered in the article anyway). Agree with you that a standalone isn't necessary. Longhornsg (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge Definitely fails in terms of notability for it's own article via WP:NOTNEWS. As suggested above, redirect to 2024_Israeli_military_operation_in_the_West_Bank#1_September which already exists. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Greece–Turkey football rivalry

Greece–Turkey football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage of the "rivalry" as a primary subject, and 14 matches between the nations over 70 years does not make a rivalry. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Greece, and Turkey. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 22:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep – As far as I know, it's a real and very strong rivalry. Svartner (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Like all Grecian/Turkish relations (and as they share a border), this is definitely a notable rivalry with two nations with very expressive soccer histories that go well beyond the pitch, and it's likely there are few matches between them solely because of said history and organizers not wanting violence to occur. Definitely not a deletion candidate. There was also content removal before the nomination, which is never a good look. Nathannah • 📮 23:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Uruli

Battle of Uruli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Sardesai, Govind Sakharam (1946) dedicated 2-3 (I'm overestimating here) lines to the actual conflict, Subrahmanian, N. (1979) mentions this conflict in passing (not by the name it is named as), same thing with Mehta, Jaswant Lal (2005), the only academic tertiary source covering the Marathas , Gordon Stewart (2005) does not even mention this battle, although it is cited here. This article completely fails notability guidelines, there is no significant coverage for the battle and even the cited sources don't call it what the author has named this article. Ratnahastin (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: No, you're actually under estimating. Sardesai has one and a half page of coverage, correct me If I'm seeing things but it's clearly verifiable. Page 289 in Subrahmanian literally calls it "Battle of Uruli". Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Dylan Cramer

Dylan Cramer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article was created by the subject's son in 2006 and has survived for nineteen years with a single source – the subject's own website. I found two news articles on Dylan Cramer (one, two), but they do not mention any major works or accomplishments. The book Journeys to the Bandstand has a chapter on him and his father, but is unlikely to mention anything that would make him notable (or there would be other news sources reporting on it). Cramer appears to be a local Vancouver musician who does not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Iiii I I I (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Music, and Canada. Iiii I I I (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

List of chemical compounds with unusual names

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names
• Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (5th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (6th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (7th nomination)

List of chemical compounds with unusual names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

In the previous deletion discussions (dating back to 2004), there were comments that said this article should be kept as long as the problems are fixed, including some that said the "Other" section should be removed. It's now 2025, and there's still tons of unsourced entries and the "Other" section is still there, and it has a "multiple issues" tag with items dating to February 2022 and August 2017. This list is also fundamentally unencyclopedic, given that it provides no information other than that some people find the names unusual, and just because there are sources does not mean it should be included; see Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. All the promises have failed to be lived up to; time for it to go. It can always be recreated at any time once the problems are fixed. 123957a (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Science, and Lists. 123957a (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with the nominator. I don't think this is significant and what constitutes unusual is not really defined unless we're saying anything not recognized by IUPAC which is an incredible number of compounds. It's normal to give chemicals memorable or even "weird" names because systemic nomenclature for large molecules is only useful for computers.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Khatoli

Battle of Khatoli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

My evaluation of the only reliable source cited: In a battle in 1518 at Ghatoli, on the border of Harauti in south Rajasthan, Ibrahim Lodi suffered a serious reverse, but Sanga was wounded and lamed for life. Clearly these two lines aren't enough to even plunge into salvaging this article. Shakakarta (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Asia, Afghanistan, India, Delhi, and Rajasthan. Shakakarta (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Kirsty M. Brown

Kirsty M. Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails WP:BIO. WP:BEFORE search for "Kirsty M. Brown" primarily yields results for an altogether different person (a British biologist killed by a leopard seal in Antarctica in 2003).

When refining the search to "Australia" or "Scouting", the only sources are not independent of the subject and are affiliated with the WOSM or Scouts Australia in some way (given that is the organization she was either employed by or the Chairwoman of, those are not reliable secondary sources). Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 21:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Scouting, and Australia. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 21:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete clearly fails WP:BIO. Her positions and achievements don't confer notability. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

DDPF

DDPF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for speedy deletion by Jules* with the reason:

original research / not verifiable. Sources do not say that DDPF is a terrorist group, we don't even know if a such group really exists (sources only talks about a Telegram group and police is not sure of anything about it. See Le Monde

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

However, the related page on attacks carried by this group shows a substantial number of references. First, I want to emphasize that Jules* removed the mention of anarchism as the main lead pursued by French authorities—even though this claim is backed by two sources in the specific article about the attacks. A simple Google search would have confirmed this. Here are the two articles: (1) (2).

Regarding DDPF, the user selectively picked sources and provided only one, Le Monde, which questions whether the attacks are coordinated and examines the links between the Telegram channel claiming responsibility (and providing close-up images/videos of the attacks—clearly from people with direct access I should say) and the actual assaults. Let me clarify: I extensively research terrorism in general and anarchist terrorism in particular, and such practices are entirely typical of 21st-century terrorist groups. The most obvious example that comes to mind is Al-Qaeda or ISIS’s online recruitment and incitement campaigns during the 2000s and 2010s. Whenever radicalized individuals carry out attacks and claim them in the group’s name, they are considered part of it—which is logical, as this is one of the primary forms of early-21st-century terrorism, sometimes overlapping with lone-wolf attacks but not always. Here, the only precise witness accounts describe multiple assailants (e.g., people in a car or hooded figures setting fire to targets)—clearly not individual acts. So, as I told Jules*, I don’t see why, even if the investigation eventually concludes (which is possible) that this isn’t an anarchist group, we couldn’t mention it as the main lead as it is the main lead so far.

The reality is that most sources do refer to it as a group—especially since the terrorist group and the Telegram channel share the same name. We’re likely dealing with a hardcore nucleus that carried out some attacks and is now trying to incite others (e.g., people linked to prisons—the only arrested suspect so far is a former inmate) to follow suit. This is a classic strategy of modern terrorism (and not even just modern—terrorism in general).

As for the claim that the Telegram channel is separate from the group (which they changed in the introduction also), frankly, I think the user deliberately cherry-picked an isolated this source. Plenty of others clearly treat it as a group—here’s a sample.(3)(4)(5)(6 in English)

Some speak of it as a 'movement', such as Le Figaro (6)

In fact, the position of the Guardian (7) describing it as a group based on the Telegram channel to communicate (meaning their main modus operandi known so far is to use that homonymous channel to coordinate, incite and mediatize their actions) seems to be the fairest one, and probably where the inquiry will go towards, but don't know yet.

But in any case, I don't see why she would delete the page ; either it's a group, a movement or a slogan anti-prison if it's ultimately decided (which is very dubious and unprobable) ; in any case it would be usable here and not a non-deserving subject. Look at the amount of sources we are discussing the subject while it's still going on, I feel like it kinda shows that it's a big subject, and I mean it's a current event, so the page will follow it's usual temporality and follow the sources as they come through ; deleting seems clearly wrong regarding the amount of sources avalaible online. Also I should note that Jules* is admin on the FR:WP and I won't repeat the accusations I made against them in the talk page of DDPF but the FR:WP admin team deleted this page for 'Manifest vandalism' while I was sleeping without opening a single discussion on it - and I feel very attacked by this categorization of what I did, which is clearly not vandalism but instead trying to do subjects I like, and you know I like terrorism-related subjects since I did hundred of pages regarding that (in this account and this one, so as not to fool anyone) ; I spent time trying to improve the FR:WP on that matter, and I still engage there while I'm being harassed, etc and this is how they act and how they categorize my edits. Do you really think it's 'Manifest vandalism' ? I feel like it was maybe rushed, but you know me, you say it to me on my talk page and I add sources and I'm a cyclical dude, I would have come back to the page to add sources over time, like I always do, Jules*. Anyways, yes, that's it, delete it if you want but it's not deserved by the amount of sources and it's more of a revealer of the atmosphere I feel like against me on FR:WP, where everyone is against me and hates my guts, basically. But it's probably deserved, hey, strange that in EN:WP it's not the same at all. Aristoxène (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

History, or God, or human consciousness or whatever people believe in will judge. I just feel like I'm being systematically attacked since I criticized rape culture there and harassment targetting me and the feminist project and their administration management of the issues. Since then, it's only hostility and them hating my guts and I'm the worst dude ever. So I'm sorry to feel that this is in the same process but I feel it's the same dynamic ; and it's personal ok but the attacks seem personal too and often by the same people. Aristoxène (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

After some thinking, I should say that I don't have the whole time of the world, so like I need to improve Rosalie Soubère and other pages for a project and do stuff IRL, so I'm sorry but I will drop this issue, do what you want with the page, it should stay, but I won't engage anymore with it or any related subjects, either here or in the FR:WP, it's ok, they will do better. I remove them from my Watchlist and I mute Jules* and I thank you all for the choice you will make, I'm sure it will be the right one. I won't be harassed like this, it's just work I did that goes into the bin and me not having the satisfaction of shaping the page I liked creating as it goes forward and we learn more about it, RIP. Aristoxène (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

"I just feel like I'm being systematically attacked since I criticized rape culture there and harassment targetting me and the feminist project and their administration management of the issues." This has nothing to do with the current matter: I never met you on fr-wp before and did not even know you name until today. And it has everything to with you writing things that are not in sources. — Jules* ^talk 22:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep: DDPF is obviously notable, there are dozens of reliable sources about it. Also, it definitely exist, people are literally commiting terror attacks in France in the name of this group and spray painting its name on the walls. See [9] for proof WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Terrorism, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge into 2025 French prison attacks. Regardless of what constitutes the DDPF, the reliable sources above only appear to discuss the group in relation to these attacks, not as independently notable. It would be best, then, to cover DDPF in the context of the attacks, and if there are additional sources about the DDPF in isolation (separate from the attacks) in the future, it can always split out to an independent article in summary style. Also noting that most sources unfurl the acronym as "Défense des droits des prisonniers français" not just "Droit des prisonniers français". And as a side note about personal attacks, every language Wikipedia is administered differently, but bringing an article to AfD discussion is foremost an opportunity to talk about the sources for the subject so I'd try not to view it as a personal judgment on the article's editors. czar 01:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge into 2025 French prison attacks. It doesn't appear that the Telegram group is independently notable as a standalone topic outside the context of the prison attacks. Including this content in the larger article improves the encyclopedic coverage of both. Longhornsg (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Sean Orr

Sean Orr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Disputed PROD, and that’s totally fine. But the de-PROD-der did so with summary that prompted me to do another cursory search, but still didn’t come up with anything tangible. My PROD statement Subject fails WP:NPOL and current sources do not help to qualify for WP:GNG still stands. I particularly went through the cited sources to find GNG-passable sources but yielded nothing. There are no sufficient independent sources that provide substantial coverage of the subject to establish the minimum GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Canada. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, and Photography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep – Seems to be plenty of secondary source and independent media coverage to me. Article could use some work, but that is not grounds for deletion. RedBlueGreen93 23:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Antoine Allen

Antoine Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this BLP about a journalist, and have not found secondary sources to add. The existing references are mostly records of his journalism. He has won an award, but I don't think it is notable. He has been shortlisted for other awards, which you can see in this earlier version of the article. He has also set a world record for generating energy by pedalling, but I don't think this makes him notable - the only relevant discussion I could find is at Notability of Guinness World Record holders, where the two editors in the discussion agreed that breaking a world record doesn't make someone notable. I cannot see that he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:JOURNALIST. Tacyarg (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The Watermelon

The Watermelon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not pass WP:NFILM. Hollywood Reporter is cited but I could not find a source and I only found 1 review from a deleted blog. A redirect to the director or screenwriter would be more appropriate. Filmforme (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Filmforme (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Redirect, then (FI, I suggested that solution when I dpDed the page) -Mushy Yank. 19:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Mosaics in Asia

Mosaics in Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't see how this is one topic, and not just a grouping of topics across two characteristics (mosaics from certain regions / influences, and certain regions in Asia) which have no real common ground. I could find no good sources for this topic as a whole (looking for this gave results about mosaics in Asia Minor, which is not the same of course). Fram (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Asia. Fram (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• While I agree that the article lacks a common bond of mosaics in the different regions, I think some of the content is good. Mosaic is overwhelmingly about Europe (and it should make better use of summary style with its subpages), but the Middle Eastern and Western Asian section is relatively short and there is nothing at all about East or Southeast Asian mosaic art. This is a new article from a new user, so I would recommend they consider merging some information or working on it as a draft. Reywas92^Talk 15:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  Draftification and splitting into separate articles may be best. Fram (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, well sourced and very detailed, the stand-alone visual arts article presents the topic in an adequate encyclopedic fashion. Not long enough for a split, and no need to think along those lines. The page covers what it intends to cover, per title. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Which sources are about the topic (as a whole, not about some subtopic)? Fram (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  The sources tie together around their common connections: mosaics and their existence in the continent of Asia. Asians artistic crafting of mosaics make for a well-done informative article. Nothing broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  That's not really how it should work though. If there are no sources treating them as one subject, we shouldn't either. It gives the impression that there is some common characteristic setting them apart from mosaics in other continents, as studied or described by reliable sources. Fram (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't found any sources covering Mosaics in Asia as a whole (in a fairly minimal search, I must admit). I agree that sections of this article are worth keeping, perhaps as separate articles or in the Mosaic article. I did note that searching various terms, including "Asian mosaics", brought up several sources about Central Asian mosaics, both ancient and modern, eg 14th and 15th century mosaics in Samarkhand and Bukhara, and 20th century mosaics on pre-fab apartments in Tashkent [10]. This topic does not seem to be covered anywhere, not even in this article on Mosaics in Asia (and their existence brings into question the statement in the Mosaic article that "Mosaics generally went out of fashion in the Islamic world after the 8th century." RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep and improve - I understand the rationale for the nom, but I lean towards an "Ignore all rules" K*eep if there is such a thing. (Note this is the first time I've ever suggested IAR.) When I consider if the the encyclopedia is better or worse off with this new article, ripe for improvement, the solid answer is that it is a positive contribution that betters the encyclopedia. I agree that there is some good content here and that the overall subject is relevant to WP's readership. The article is only one week old, and can be improved in terms of sourcing and format. A quick BEFORE finds many articles on JSTOR about mosaics that exist in Asian countries, but I have not had the time to read them all to understand if they discuss the entire Asian continent as a whole. Perhaps this is an emerging field in art history/archaeology. I think the article needs more time for the new editor to develop it, but it is not so "broken" that it needs to be draftified at this time. A simple "under construction" maintenance tag may be the solution. That and encouragement directed to the newbie editor, Jaynentu who created it. Netherzone (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

  Appreciate all the editors for your time and feedbacks. I do find more valuable sources for developing to improve the content. Certainly more time and suggestions would help to organize this work. Jaynentu (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Jaynentu, do you have sources that you can present here that discuss the topic of Mosaics in Asia as a whole? That would be really helpful. Netherzone (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep looks well sourced. The topic is broad. Can be improved either way. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• Split into region-specific articles: West Asia, South Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia. Perhaps even narrower: Persian mosaics is still a redlink! However, I recognize that this is unlikely to gain consensus at the tail end of an AfD, so in the meantime I guess we can draftify it or keep it. I don't think the topic is notable, which makes the article basically SYNTH, but the content is not bad and should be kept somewhere while it's being split. Jaynentu, thank you for writing this – I encourage you to write the narrower region-specific mosaic articles as well! Toadspike [Talk] 09:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Untitled S. S. Rajamouli film

Untitled S. S. Rajamouli film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No film title, just started filming, and anticipated release date in 2027. Nothing notable about the production and references are all churnalism, routine, or WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I do not see a redirect as an option as it has twice been removed based on the history. CNMall41 (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: This article is premature as the film is still in the early stages of production and lacks a confirmed title. The current sources primarily offer routine production updates and do not demonstrate the significant notability required for a standalone article at this stage. Creating a full article now risks violating WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL, as details about the film are likely to evolve. While the involvement of notable figures is acknowledged, Wikipedia articles require more than just anticipation to warrant inclusion. Deletion is recommended until the film progresses further, has a definitive title, and receives substantial coverage establishing its notability.Aditi's Voice (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: filming has started; notable cast, crew and director; a lot of coverage about production. At worst, redirect (or draftify). Opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 15:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Move to SSMB29, the film's tentative title. It is noteworthy that the director's previous film's tentative title was so famous that it became the actual title, which is likely not the case for this film however. DareshMohan (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom and WP:TOOSOON. Sources are mostly about leaked scene and others are on casting, and other routine news. Not notable yet. I was leaning to vote draftify but very likely the page will be moved back again right away to mainspace unless an administrator can put a move lock to it. If a move lock can be done, please let me know and I can change my vote to draftify. RangersRus (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Aditi's Voice:, you need to bold your vote. RangersRus (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: The title should not be the criteria to redirect or delete, as it has begun filming, is notable and has wide media coverage. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 5:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Regards (CP) 07:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - no amount of puffery about upcoming movies will ever make them notable until release. For one thing it isn't unknown for projects to be cancelled in post. For another, it unnecessary as if the upcoming movie is as good as the editors writing this stuff say it is then it will quickly be shown to be notable once it is finished. WP:TOOSOON WP:CRYSTAL JMWt (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. The article relies heavily on WP:NEWSORGINDIA, so it doesn't even pass WP:GNG. I think it's a case of WP:TOOSOON - the notability may come in time, but for now it's too early to tell.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment can this article not be draftified? I think the information currently on the page is substantial enough for that, just until filming or something has started. jolielover♥talk 07:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  Filming has started, I repeat: filming has started.https://www.timesnownews.com/entertainment-news/bollywood/priyanka-chopra-drops-glimpse-of-nyc-moments-ft-nick-jonas-daughter-malti-resumes-ssmb-29-shoot-in-hyderabad-article-119553319 -Mushy Yank. 21:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of filming, please see WP:NFF which states, "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." How is the production notable?--CNMall41 (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Budget, coverage, cast, etc. -Mushy Yank. 04:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Where is the notability guideline that states notability is based on budget, cast, coverage, etc.? I must have missed it. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Probably. -Mushy Yank. 17:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Found it.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

No, wrong link. -Mushy Yank. 17:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

...guys, really? Toadspike [Talk] 21:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep – this has several claims to notability already, and it seems to have significant coverage in reliable sources. As for NEWSORGINDIA, some pieces don't have bylines, but some do [11], and some are not even Indian [12]. I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that a film that has begun shooting with a notable director, notable producer, and notable cast is notable. Add to that the fact that the director's last project was RRR, the most successful Indian film of all time by several metrics, and that line of argument becomes very reasonable. I could support draftifying until release, but the draft will be at risk of deletion every six months – when we expect this to come out in two years, that's just creating an unnecessary headache. Toadspike [Talk] 21:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete for now per WP:HAMMER. Once the film is released, that will be the time to have an article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  You may argue that the sources we have don't show that film is notable right now, but that essay doesn't seem to apply; we have a lot more than "rumors posted to message boards, blogs, or Facebook" right now. Toadspike [Talk] 13:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:NFF would apply. Just because something "has begun shooting with a notable director, notable producer, and notable cast is notable" does not mean it is notable. Maybe when it gets closer to release (which isn't even a definite date, but the earliest would be two years from now) but right now the majority of sources are press releases, churnalism, and fancruft. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Draftify or Delete - For a film which is suspected to release so far into the future, and seems to lack any form of notability for its prerelease details. The subject also seems to include several speculatory points from unreliable sources (i.e WP:GNG).

I do think because of the lack of notability, it might be too soon. I think that more reliable sources may be introduced as relevance rises but in the current state, it isn't like that. This should either be drafted or deleted (for speculatory reasons). twisted. (user | talk | contribs) 18:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Leaning towards draftify per WP:TOOSOON. However, I do think it will be notable in the future, if it isn't already. Procyon117 (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Negative checking

Negative checking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

After a cursory search through the sources listed in part D of WP:BEFORE, I failed to find any other notable sources (much less three) that specifically speaks of negative checking as opposed to someone's checking account having a negative balance. A search for neg check is admittedly a bit more promising, but it mainly turns out online services as opposed to notable sources.

Given that we can't really merge this article into our article on the fictitious persons disclaimer (which itself doesn't really discuss negative checking), I propose deleting this article. Silcox (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• no opinion on how notable, but I looked for the Lunney and Oliphant book mentioned on the page, and it indeed has a para on negative checking just as described, on page 728. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  • I'll admit that I'm unable to read the book due to technical reasons, although I was already aware that the book was mentioned in the article even while writing this AfD. I cannot find any other sources on negative checking, so I think we're stuck in 1R territory even if the book proved to be a non-passing reference for the subject. Silcox (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
    • That's a shame, because if you had, you would have seen that the source cites a second source itself: Barendt et al. 1997a, pp. 114–115 and Barendt et al. 1997b, pp. 195. That said, I think that this is the BBC's idiosyncratic name for this. I found exactly one other mention, and it was in a directory of BBC departments in a 1993 handbook on television production (ISBN 9780240513447). (Yes, BBC. The original source talks about the BBC. See page 132.) Uncle G (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
      • Barendt, Eric; Lustgarten, Laurence; Norrie, Kenneth; Stephenson, Hugh (1997a). "Broadcasting". Libel and the Media: The Chilling Effect. Clarendon Press. pp. 100–125. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198262275.003.0005. ISBN 9780198262275.
      • Barendt, Eric; Lustgarten, Laurence; Norrie, Kenneth; Stephenson, Hugh (1997b). "Conclusions". Libel and the Media: The Chilling Effect. Clarendon Press. pp. 182–198. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198262275.003.0009. ISBN 9780198262275.

• The section heading used on Barendt et al. 1997a, p. 114 is "The Problem of Unintentional Defamation", by the way. You will get a lot further with unintentional defamation as the subject name. Of course we've had a missing subject titled by one particular nonce noun phrase instead of the actual name since 2008. This is Wikipedia. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Radio, Television, and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a UK term, not specifically a BBC one - and indeed the example given in the article is an ITV programme, although it is used at the BBC. Smethurst's How to Write for Television (both 2000 and 2016 editions) has half a page of discussion of neg checking under Libel. Gallagher's Breaking into UK Film and TV Drama (2016) mentions it under Clearances. Orlebar's The Practical Media Dictionary (2003) has an entry for Negative Checks. Note that all of these have a slightly different definition from the current article - it's not just about individuals' names, but also about products and companies. I didn't find any examples of it being used outside the UK; from the US, Patz's Production Management 101 (2002) uses it to mean checking film negatives. Adam Sampson (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  • With 3 slangy sources where "neg check" is string matched to something partway down and buried in the middle of what is actually a discussion of defamation (the "libel" sources saying "defamatory matter" outright), specifically unintentional defamation, how one risks it and how one can attempt to avoid it, you make my case for me.

    If you go instead to the higher quality law sources like Douglas Maule's Media Law Essentials (EUP, 2017) or Robertson and Lane's Media Law: The Rights of Journalists and Broadcasters (Longman, 1984) you'll find this and more under unintentional defamation. There's tonnes of this if one actually gets the subject name right and stops following the Wikipedia practice of using slang titles and string matching.

    I'll mention at this point that the Lunney and Oliphant book is on the law of tort and page 728 is part of chapter 12, on defamation, pages 727 to 729 dealing with intent and with E. Hulton & Co. v Jones, 20 (AC 1910). as the aforementioned do as well (and which has had impact in Indian and Australian jurispridence). Even the 1 original source cited is telling us all what the subject is. Uncle G (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• Move to unintentional defamation and refactor this content into a section on means of preventing this, basically per Uncle G. BD2412 T 14:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. This seems related to the concept of "this is a work of fiction, any similarities to real life, people, events are unintentional" that is probably notable, but I am not sure what is the related term, and whether we have any article on this. Merging this to some defamation related topic makes sense. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  • @Piotrus: That would be the above-mentioned Fictitious persons disclaimer (which has some structural problems of its own, but is notable and fixable). BD2412 T 04:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

    Thanks. I think it is the best place for merger then. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

    @Piotrus: I think perhaps we merge both to a new article titled along the lines of Defamation in fictional portrayals. BD2412 T 17:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Merge to defamation per WP:NOPAGE. I'm not convinced this meets the WP:GNG. To the extent that people can find sources, it won't make much sense to a reader without explaining defamation. I am open to other targets. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge per Shooterwalker. Not enough for a stand alone article (here since 2008), but worth keeping in a page like defamation. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Views are split between keeping outright, retargeting somewhere else, or merging the content. More discussion needed to determine which is the preferred option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Just my two cents: Keep. I came here from the credits of a Black Mirror (UK) episode that mentioned "Neg Checker".

This was the first thing I found so I think this article is still valuable, even though it's rather short. Since Black Mirror is a UK show, it aligns with what Adam Sampson said in this message, which would probably be a great addition for the article itself. NullDev (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Allegiance (American band)

Allegiance (American band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This page was created by a user who has the same name as one of the members of the group. Beyond that it doesn't appear like there's any reliable sources about this band. GamerPro64 18:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. GamerPro64 18:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO and WP:COI issue. I can't tell whether the OP was a huge fan of the band or a band member himself. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: After searching, I can't find any reliable, third-party sources about this band. No indication of meeting WP:GNG and it doesn't seem like any verifiable sources exist. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 22:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: I could not find any reliable, secondary sourcing. Best I found was an interview. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Edward Cecot

Edward Cecot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Footballer that fails WP:GNG. No sources beyond profiles from databases. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Professor Chronotis

Professor Chronotis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A minor character who appeared in both Doctor Who and Dirk Gently. A search for sources across News, Books, and Scholar yields only mentions in plot summary or ROUTINE coverage of Shada (Doctor Who), and anything outside of Shada are only trivial references to in-universe content or brief mentions of the character's role. I would suggest a redirect to Shada, seeing as the bulk of coverage focuses on Chronotis's role in that story, compared to his role in Dirk Gently. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Maratha Resurrection

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Maratha Resurrection
• Articles for deletion/Maratha Resurrection (2nd nomination)

Maratha Resurrection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is no substance here, and no claim to standalone notability. The Maratha polity lasted ~150 years, and underwent several expansions and contractions, from minor kingdoms to the largest in India of its time. No special attention is paid by historical sources to the 11-year period between 1761 and 1772: it is treated as a part of the continuous history of this polity, and the term is barely used (I could find exactly four academic sources using this term, and they grant it no great significance). There is no encyclopedic material in this article that doesn't exist at Maratha confederacy. A redirect ought to be uncontroversial, but has previously been disputed, so I'm bringing this here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Neither me could find a specific categorizarion of an era like this. Ping me if anyone makes a source analysis Hionsa (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Siege of Barwara (1757)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Siege of Barwara (1757)
• Articles for deletion/Siege of Barwara (1757) (2nd nomination)

Siege of Barwara (1757) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

"The Marathas tightly besieged the fort, but failed to capture it." Do we have anything more to light this only relevant line in the battle section? If not then it has no place in mainspace, no WP:SIGCOV. Shakakarta (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Asia, India, Delhi, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Shakakarta (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete addition to the notability issue, the article on a whole depends on JN Sarkar, whose sources are disputed about reliability. The title of the article too not found in RS. No reason to keep in mainspace.Hionsa (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Sarangpur

Battle of Sarangpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Another "battle" article with only two lines of knowhow around the event: The two armies met in A.D. 1437 and after a severe engagement, the Sultan's army was utterly routed. It shouldn't have been in the mainspace to begin with. Shakakarta (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Nadaun (1752)

Battle of Nadaun (1752) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsalvageable, "A fierce engagement took place the next day in which the hill states and the Dal Khalsa managed to defeat the imperial army and slay the steward" with such few lines of coverage. Shakakarta (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Himachal Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Ranakpur

Battle of Ranakpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No source defines it as "Battle of Ranakpur" the battle section speaks louder as the event is too small to get a standalone article. Fails WP:NEVENT. Shakakarta (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Kama

Battle of Kama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is not a battle, no coverage is found, "On 29 February 1768, the two armies met outside Kama and a fight followed in which the Bharatpur army were beaten back and forced to retreat, with the loss of their general Dan Sahi." is not gonna help it to have a standalone article. Shakakarta (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

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 Withdrawn. –Davey2010^Talk 19:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC) ‎

Alan Ko

Alan Ko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable singer, Cannot find any evidence of any notability, The article says their first 2 albums have charted however I've not been able to verify this, And their acting appears to have been all minor roles, Fails NSINGER, NACTOR and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 16:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Taiwan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Meets WP:Nactor with various significant roles (not minor) in notable productions. -Mushy Yank. 19:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  What are you basing that on?, I was going by his IMDb page which lists 6 shows/films. all 3 TV shows he's been in show "one episode" next to them, and on 2 films he's not listed as the top cast so I assume this would indicate their role(s) weren't significant enough to be in the top 5-20,

  The only film where he is top cast is The People in the Attic which doesn't appear to be a notable film anyway, If he got some attention for being in the film then that would be a story but as far as I can see that's never happened so he still fails NACTOR, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  Errr... Davey2010, that is a different Alan Ko... This is the Alan Ko you nominated. Both IMDb profiles have portraits so I do not understand the confusion here. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 19:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe because I was basing my entire comment on apparently someone else ?, Thought that was obvious but apparently not. You can stop replying now –Davey2010^Talk 19:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  Well, but I believe I am replying correctly. The Alan Ko you nominated is neither the individual from the IMDb page you provided nor has he starred in The People in the Attic. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 19:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Strong keep or speedy keep per CSK#3 as the nomination statement is completely erroneous. Cannot find any evidence of any notability: A simple search of the subject's Chinese name "柯有倫" on Google News yields 7,260 results, not to mention the subject used the stage name "柯有綸" prior to 2010, which would generate even more results. I do not have the time to delve into the thousands of sources to find the best ones for you, but I will list a couple of most recent sources from late 2024 to 2025 that already clearly suffice for a GNG pass. (HK01[13], Wen Wei Po[14], ETtoday[15], United Daily News[16],Taiwan Television[17], or sources from United Daily News and Liberty Times about his 2024 single[18][19]) And their acting appears to have been all minor roles: This claim is also absolutely untrue. The subject has had lead roles in several films and television series, such as Love By Design, Sweet Relationship, and Din Tao: Leader of the Parade, all of which are mentioned in the article and by clicking on the links, his name was clearly listed as first or second in the billings. He has also played lead roles in many other titles that are yet to be created with an article, like Rhythm of the Rain or Kiss Me Mom! or the Malaysian film The Great Lion Kun Seng Keng, etc. As a Hong Konger, I myself recognized the subject from a Hong Kong Netflix series OCTB, where he also starred as one of the leads.[20] It does not even require access to Chinese sources to verify the roles, simply Googling "Alan Ko film reviews" already reveals the numerous films where he is credited as the lead. (Like [21], [22], [23]) While I am not familiar with the Taiwanese music industry and cannot verify chart positions that were two decades ago (though I believe they are accurate, as the subject's albums Alan Kuo (album) and Welcome to my World each have standalone articles on Chinese Wikipedia, likely based on WP:CHARTS), I found sources mentioning some of his recent singles charting. For instance, his 2020 single "Carry On" topped weekly charts [24] and entered yearly charts.[25] At this point, it is safe to conclude that no WP:BEFORE was conducted prior to the nomination, (or if there were, it was not done properly,) and the nomination statement does not hold water at all. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 19:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Prince of Erebor Enlighten me Prince, Which part of "Alan+Ko"&client=opera&hs=ibs&sca_esv=998bf72b6ecefea6&biw=1918&bih=946&tbm=nws&sxsrf=AHTn8zqN-Zw-R_ch0THh1NbRTsVx8pYYWA%3A1744832121606&ei=eQYAaPXiJK-ohbIPg-bioAM&ved=0ahUKEwi1g7SWpt2MAxUvVEEAHQOzGDQQ4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq="Alan+Ko"&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LW5ld3MiCSJBbGFuIEtvIjIGEAAYBxgeMgYQABgHGB4yBhAAGAcYHjIGEAAYBxgeMgYQABgHGB4yBhAAGAcYHjIGEAAYBxgeMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAESKQXUNQFWJEQcAB4AJABAJgBZaABiQKqAQMyLjG4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgOgAqICwgIKEAAYgAQYQxiKBcICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIHEAAYgAQYCsICBhAAGBYYHpgDAIgGAZIHAzIuMaAHmQ-yBwMyLjG4B6IC&sclient=gws-wiz-news this link or "Alan+Ko"&client=opera&hs=Yds&sca_esv=998bf72b6ecefea6&sxsrf=AHTn8zpm1ojgQ3nKVxeoFShR4Ld1HOirfg:1744832235815&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwij4u7Mpt2MAxVsV0EAHWYwH6g4ChDSlAl6BAgHEAM&biw=1918&bih=946&dpr=1 this link shows all of the news pieces you mention? .... Exactly! None of them!, Granted I only searched up his English name but nonetheless I still did my BEFORE and searched various places before nominating this article like I do with any article prior to nominating it.

  Fucking Christ maybe AGF one in a while!. –Davey2010^Talk 19:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  I apologize if my wording seems a bit aggressive, Davey, but when nominating a Taiwanese person whose career is entirely based in Asia, I believe it is essential to search for Chinese sources using his Chinese name. Here is the Google News search that results from simply entering the subject's Chinese name. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 19:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

David Benjamin Deller

David Benjamin Deller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of notability, no good independent indepth sources found, and the awards, while impressive, are not selective enough to warrant inclusion on their own. Fram (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Police, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Jenny Taylor

Jenny Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to fail WP:BIO and more specifically, I don't think any of the criteria in WP:AUTHOR are made out. Article as it is currently written has WP:NPOV issues, seems like WP:PROMO, and has had an orange WP:GNG tag at the top for nearly ten years, so I'm inclined to delete on TNT grounds even if my brief search for other notability failed me. Flip^andFlopped ツ 01:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

List of battles of Guru Gobind Singh

List of battles of Guru Gobind Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Undiscussed and unnecessary WP:CFORK. The content already exists at Guru Gobind Singh#Wars. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Sikhism, Lists, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hionsa (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not a very experienced Wikipedia editor, but the page WP:CFORK doesn't seem to provide rationale for deletion, as if I've read the guideline correctly then this is an instance of WP:DIFFORK. Stockhausenfan (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Trish Doan

Trish Doan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am the creator of this page. I have felt kinda guilty about this for a while because I think I did a terrible job at it. My reasons for deletion are as follows:

1. Most of the article is based on an web source from the Headbanging Moose, which I realise now is unverifiable/not an interview. In one recent search I found it was citing text from a Tumblr interview (alas that too was inaccessible). Either way; bad source, which makes up most of the article. Also, Hergirlrock and trishdoan.com are primary sources

2. Most of the reliable source coverage about Trish concerns her departure from the band in 2008, or her death in 2017. I feel both of these can be explained just as well in the Kittie band article or in other related articles (i.e. the documentary stuff)

3. When I made this page, I thought I was doing so primarily because I though Trish was an underrated bassist on Funeral for Yesterday and I wanted them to be known for other stuff outside of their struggles. In hindsight and in other words, I was trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I am kinda more accepting of the fact that shit things do happen to people. I recognise the feelings I had at the time (aka when this was made; 2023) reflected my life situation which I didn't think I had a way out of at the time, and as such my edits were kinda projections of that mentality. I'm in a better place now (in part thanks to Funeral for Yesterday, actually) but I still feel as though I failed. If I made things worse, I am sorry.

// Chchcheckit (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, South Korea, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Nanochannel glass materials

Nanochannel glass materials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about arrays of nanoscale glass holes; not to be confused with Nanopipettes or Anodized Aluminum Oxide. Article is based upon a NRL development or patent, and a single NRL science paper where these were used as a template for deposition. While that is an interesting paper, it did not get adopted by the community, having 86 total cites as of March 2025, which is not large for a high-profile journal. No indications of general notability, certainly not compared to nanopipettes and other types of nanoscale piping in microfluidics or similar systems which are different. Hence fails notability criteria for retention.

Article was PROD'd by nominator, with a PROD2 by User:Bieran. Prod was opposed by User:Mark viking who added sources on nanoscale glass pipettes, and argued (see Talk) that the article is about nanoscale channels, which it was not. Note that the sources added are for single pipettes, not arrays. Options are:

• Delete
• Keep
• Redirect to nanopipette, i.e. keeping such pipettes as a topic that is notable, but acknowledging that what is currently here is different, i.e. abandoning the array concept. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

References

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Would think a merge best here. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect is acceptable to me. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Has decent number of sources. However it relies too much on primary sources. I have seen worse. Ramos1990 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge I contested the PROD and added three secondary sources; the first two sources (sources 4 and 5)[26][27] had material on nanochannel arrays in addition to single nanochannels; search for 'array' in the articles and you will find it. The third (source 6) was purely about single nanochannels. The first two sources seem to have enough array content for notability per WP:GNG and so my first recommendation would be to keep the article. Should other editors disagree on the notability threshold, there is certainly plenty of verifiable material within secondary sources to support a merge into Nanopipette. It's WP policy to try to preserve verifiable material per WP:PRESERVE, so I think a merge would be an acceptable second choice. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: I did a quick check of Cambridge University Press and found several sources that deal directly with nanochannel glass materials (NCGM). These include: 1) Photonic Band Structure of Nanochannel Glass Materials (MRS Proceedings, 1996); 2) High-Pass Optical Filters Based on Gold-Coated Nanochannel Glass Materials (MRS Proceedings, 1996); 3) Fabrication of InAs Wires in Nanochannel Glass (MRS Proceedings, 1996). Each article focuses on NCGM as its main subject. This seems enough to pass WP:GNG as a standalone article. HerBauhaus (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  My apologies, but MRS Proceedings are extended conference papers which are rarely cited, often not reviewed, they are not standard journal articles. MRS is a good society, but such articles do not come close in reputation to ones in journals such as Acta Metallurgica or Phil Mag as a couple of examples. Plus three articles from ~30 years ago is definitely not WP:Sustained. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: The MRS Proceedings, published by Cambridge University Press, are WP:RS since both the society and the publisher are well-regarded in the scientific community. These articles undergo editorial and technical peer review ([28], [29]). Each of the 3 cited papers provides independent coverage of nanochannel glass materials as its main subject. That satisfies WP:GNG, which requires only significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Sustained or recent coverage is not required.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HerBauhaus (talk • contribs) 01:06, April 13, 2025 (UTC) HerBauhaus (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

To editor HerBauhaus: I am sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with your argument that 3 citations in extended conference proceedings such as those you quote satisfy WP:GNG. (Few senior academics in MSE include MRS proceedings in their CV, those publications would be ignored by their peers/Deans.) Similarly 3 cites in standard journals are not close to enough. This is even more so when the papers being quoted come from the same authors at NRL of the patent and paper upon which an article is based, so are clearly not independent, secondary sources.Ldm1954 (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Approval by senior elitist academics is not required for notability. If there is peer review by a reputable publisher, that is generally enough to consider a publication reliable in terms of the review aspect. Not independent and secondary mean these primary articles by themselves are not enough for notability. Nonetheless, primary publications from 1996, and others in the article, and the two secondary reviews I linked above from 2013 and 2018, show sustained coverage--even the array subtopic was not a one-week flash in the pan. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Miracle Machine

Miracle Machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

None of the sources are reliable independent sources, and nothing better could be found. Fram (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Music, Comics and animation, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: This character is not significantly discussed by reliable sources. Furthermore, this character is not the clear primary topic for the term "miracle machine". ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

TIL that the character in those videos I watched as a kid has a name. No sourcing exists whatsoever for this, so delete. Honestly this could probably be speedied this is very niche. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - Not a single source being used in the article is a reliable source, and searches are turning up next to nothing. Clearly fails the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Albuquerque: THE MOVIE

Albuquerque: THE MOVIE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Couldn't find any evidence of notability, only databases or unreliable sources. Fram (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Comics and animation, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: If we could find any sort of RS coverage for this - even just a mention - we could probably add this to the reception section on the song's article. So far I'm finding nothing that could be usable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

A Course of Action

A Course of Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is no evidence of notability. In my WP:BEFORE search, I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Many of the sources are press releases, profile listings, social media posts and unreliable blogs. Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC.

Also nominating the band's album and single articles for the same reasons:

• Dark Before the Dawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Treason (A Course of Action album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rocklahoma (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Never There (A Course of Action song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Beautiful (A Course of Action song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Who We Are (A Course of Action song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 107 (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Frost 13:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Albums and songs. Frost 13:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  This band while not achieving large mainstream success was very active for over 16 years with multiple albums, EP's, and singles. Also, this band participated in numerous large music festivals allover the United States that toured in support of various different mainstream acts. To delete such articles, especially of a group who was active for nearly two decades would be a great disservice. After all, is Wikipedia not an open-sourced community open for individuals to share their knowledge of something that others are not familiar with? I mean no disrespect to the individual who nominated this article for deletion, but I spent well over a week researching this artist to verify all these facts and sources to confirm all the information is factual. The lack of sources from major outlets is due to the fact the band has been inactive for nearly a decade and many sources are long gone and were not saved to the internet archive. But as stated I spent over a week combing through old videos and interviews from the band directly to confirm all the details were true and correct without positive or negative bias. I'm just a fan of music with a goal of preserving the history of artists and bands who left their mark on the industry, and though A Course of Action didn't make a historic mark like The Beatles or Michael Jackson, nearly two decades of activity and releases would be a tragedy to just forget about and label as non-noteworthy. Bruteforce7700 (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Macan Band

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Macan Band
• Articles for deletion/Macan Band (2nd nomination)

Macan Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability of the band is disputed as not enough significant coverage provided (yet). Norlk (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iran. Skynxnex (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Arunachal Times

Arunachal Times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nom, No evidence of notability. References are just passing mentions and not from reliable sources. Bakhtar40 (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  You will barely find any references for newspapers. News media do not talk about each other. This was already a discussion in Wikiproject:Newspaper that the criteria for normal articles cannot be used for newspapers. Kindly see Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Where I live, newspapers are covered extensively by both encyclopedias and books. Any hope there? Geschichte (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  In the west yes, but not so when it comes to Asian countries. Thats why I mentioned that, we gotta approach newspapers differently, as it creates an obvious bias. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arunachal Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: In accordance with WP:NMEDIA, dailies such as Arunachal Times are assumed significant if they extensively circulate and contain a known history of independent reporting. Asking for major secondary coverage creates an unrealistic expectation—media does not cover others. Removing this page has the risk of enabling systemic bias (WP:BIAS) against regional media. You cannot judge dailies using WP:GNG as dailies themselves are the source of 3rd party material. Other dailies don't usually write about each other Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - searching on Google Books reveal that plenty of works reference this newspaper. South Asia and China: Engagement in the Twenty-First Century has ample commentary about the editorial positions of the newspaper on Indo-China issues. Mass Media of India -2004 lists it as one of the principal dailies in the state. The sole daily in Arunachal Pradesh listed in Press in India, vol. 33. "Arunachal Times was published from the state with Vijay Kumar Nath as the chief editor and Taso Grayu as the editor - cum- publisher . Kumar joined in August 1989 and ultimately took over as its editor in December 2003. Its popularity grew day by day . From letter composing , the daily introduced offset in 1996 and web offset on 2nd December 2008."([30]). In 2014-2015 Arunchal Times had the second-largest advertisement payments from central Ministry of Information and Broadcasting of all Arunchal newspapers ([31]). "In July this year, Tongam Rina, a leading journalist and associate editor of Arunachal Times was shot from close range while she was leaving the office." (The Telegraph), "On July 15, 2012, the well-known investigative journalist and associate editor of the Arunachal Times was shot by unknown gunmen as she entered..." (IFJ). "Arunachal Pradesh chief minister Nabam Tuki has enquired about the progress of investigation into the recent attacks on The Arunachal Times office" (ToI). Etc, etc. It almost feels like WP:BEFORE was not performed before bringing this to AfD. --Soman (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  I would say that these sources are passing mentions and the last book and PDF which you cited are government publications, so they are not INDEPENDENT. GrabUp - Talk 08:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  I am quoting wikipedia guidelines for media outlets:

  Many of the reliable sources used on Wikipedia come from the media, especially about current topics. However, the media does not often report on itself. It is not often that one media outlet will give neutral attention to another, as this could be seen as "advertising for the competition." Also, when searching for sources on media outlets, the results are often pages produced by the outlet, making it difficult to find significant coverage in multiple sources.

  As media outlets are themselves a significant proportion of our sources for other content, however, it serves an important purpose for Wikipedia to provide neutral and verifiable information about those sources so that readers are able to evaluate their reliability and scope.

  The subject here is definitely notble because as @Soman pointed out, it has been the subject of coverage of multiple independent sources, and there are countless scholarly sources, that have cited this news outlet for their research. This definitely does qualify wikipedia guidelines. What you are citing right now about trivial mention is WP:GNG. You cannot use WP:GNG for news outlets.

  This is what Wikipedia guidelines have to say for newspapers.

  Notability is presumed for newspapers, magazines and journals that verifiably meet through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:

  1. have produced work that has received a well-known and significant journalism award or honor or has been nominated for such an award several times
  2. have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history
  3. are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative or influential in their subject area
  4. are frequently cited by other reliable sources
  5. are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets

  Publications that primarily carry advertising and only have trivial content may have relevant details merged to an article on their publisher or an equivalent sister newspaper (if notable). Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Flyingphoenixchips: Stop using LLM and I already pointed out to you, that it is not a guidline still now. GrabUp - Talk 05:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  When did I use lol lmao. My guy. I just copy pasted what was there in WP:NMEDIA. If that’s LLM then pls edit the page Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Flyingphoenixchips: You were posting LLM generated arguments here. You were so careless that you even copied links directly from ChatGPT,the links ended with ‘?utm_source=chatgpt.com’. After I collapsed your message, you removed it so no one would know you were using LLMs here and in other AfDs. And now, you’re shamelessly claiming that you never used them. Even I raised this to you in your Talk page, which you removed without replies. GrabUp - Talk 05:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Dude what I copied is from Wikipedia itself. Have a look. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  So, this LLM argument you posted here was copied from Wikipedia? Wikipedia includes links with ending “chatgpt”? GrabUp - Talk 05:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Not talking about this. Talking about what I posted yesterday, and you called that LLM 🤷‍♂️ Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arunachal_Times&oldid=1285694550

  talking about this edit. You called this LLM generated. Yes I admit using it previously, and I am not using it right now. You called the points I added in yesterday as LLM. That’s where I corrected you Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Whatever I have written just now was just a copy of what was already there in WP:NMEDIA I did not change a single word, so I guess the content of WP:NMEDIA is LLM generated 🤷‍♂️ Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep To get us back on track, I'd like to say something important. NMEDIA is an essay, and in 2021, an attempt to make it an SNG (which I led) was roundly rejected. Flyingphoenixchips does quote NMEDIA, in a section that predated widespread use of LLM. Yes, newspapers tend to be a bit gun-shy about covering their rivals.
  But here, we have to separate notability and article condition. The current article text smells of an LLM (the lack of most wikilinks also contributes to this feeling), and the 2020 start date seems wrong (they have stories up to 2017 on their site). Only Soman's source work indicates correctly the notability of this daily newspaper, which was the first broadsheet daily in the state when it began 6 June 1989 (ProQuest 2272282984). This page needs someone to start over and do it right. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 23:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Arabilin

Arabilin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The text of this article is entirely inaccurate. There is no mention of "arabilin" in either of the two cited references. The only mentions of "arabilin" I can find in the scientific literature are unrelated to what is described in the text of this article. See for example, doi:10.1038/ja.2010.98, doi:10.1038/ja.2016.162, and doi:10.1021/ja209459f. I have a suspicion that this article is simply the result of AI-generated hallucination. I have created an alternate article as a draft (Draft:Arabilin) about the actual chemical compound with this name. I propose deleting the current version of arabilin, and then if there is consensus that the topic is notable enough, that the draft article be moved into its place. Innerstream (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete current article. I agree with Innerstream's analysis. There is a ChemSpider entry for genuine arabilin but the article here is not that substance. The editor User:Mlkfrz4455 who created the article said that it was a "most wanted article" but I don't know where they got that idea. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, the "most wanted" comment is probably a result of all the incoming links due to its listing at Template:Androgen receptor modulators (which is consistent with the content at the draft article, but inconsistent with the current mainspace article). Innerstream (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

You can improve the article in the main space instead of nominating it for deletion. As you created a new draft on the same topic, you van add these data and references in the main space article. Please expand and improve Wikipedia articles instead of deleting them. Thank you Mlkfrz4455 (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Although your article and my draft article have the same title, they are not the same topic. The chemical compound you wrote about does not exist and the one I wrote about does. The entire content of arabilin is just plain wrong, so your suggestion to expand it makes no sense. Innerstream (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

If this plain wrong you can fix it with proper references and data analysis. You can replace it with the correct information. Mlkfrz4455 (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I got the idea from Wikipedia:Most-wanted articles. I think you are unaware of this. As a new editor I'm exploring and exploring the Wikipedia and helping to build the encyclopedia. Mlkfrz4455 (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Mlkfrz4455 Thanks, I see now why you tackled that article. As Innerstream said above, arabilin was on that list because of a template. However, you wrote about a compound that is not arabilin. Did you use a large language model to do so? Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete As noted, the article doesn't seem to be about the actual compound at all. I would also vote against writing a new article, as there is very little in both google scholar and scifinder about the compound (47 results GScholar, 7 scifinder). Seems to be another natural product with some antibacterial properties, but not a strong enough antibiotic to be of note. Here is the CAS number if anyone needs it/wants to go searching: 1323981-37-8. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete what is there now as it is completely false, and polluting serach results. It can be replaced by the draft. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Christopher Mellon

Christopher Mellon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• The essence of his biography is exclusively sourced to non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources like the UFO group "To the Stars Academy," and a disclosure document filed at opensecrets.org; or, to non-WP:RS sources like a show page for a History Channel Ancient Aliens-type fantasy show ("Unidentified! Inside America's UFO Investigation").
• This is legitimized through extensive REFBOMBing in which a dozen RS (e.g. Vice, The Guardian, etc.) are crammed into the article. However, on close inspection, each of these simply contain one sentence quotes from Mellon; no biographical detail or detail of any kind.
• This Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article is the only independent biographical treatment of him and it's two short and scanty paragraphs [32].

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Lefter Koxhaj

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Lefter Koxhaj
• Articles for deletion/Lefter Koxhaj (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Lefter Koxhaj (3rd nomination)

Lefter Koxhaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete and WP:SALT. Still fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:1E. The "Do not delete" vote above just prove that he is notable only for 1 event. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 02:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Decentralist Party of the South

Decentralist Party of the South (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Peru. JMWt (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG. Note for example "Después de su derrocamiento, regresa al Perú y participa en la revolución de 1931 en Arequipa. Impulsa la creación del Partido Descentralista del Sur. Preside la Junta Provisional de Gobierno constituida para convocar inmediatamente elecciones. Cede la presidencia a don David Samanez Ocampo, que luego encabezaría en Lima la Junta Nacional de Gobierno." ([33]) - So the PDS leader became the interim president of the country. Multiple sources affirm that PDS was represented in the Constituent Assembly, and that it brought David Samanez Ocampo to power. --Soman (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  Ok good. Add three good sources to the page and I'll withdraw the afd. JMWt (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  That's not how AfD works. Notability is not judged by the presence of sources in the article, nor is AfD supposed to be a forum for clean-up. I refer to WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE. --Soman (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry no, this has been unsourced since 2009, there has been plenty of time to add sources. You here claim that there are plenty of sources that meet the GNG, so if it is that easy then add them. If not, your claims are not verified per Wikipedia:Verifiability JMWt (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  @JMWt the verifiability policy applies to articles exclusively. It does not apply to discussions. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

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

  @Soman I agree. It might help if you listed a few sources here at the AFD to show they exist -- not everyone speaks enough Spanish to search very effectively to check. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• @Soman: Can you provide at least 3 reliable sources that have given significant coverage? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge with Decentralist Party. Alberto Vegara's chapter "The Fujimori Regime through Tocqueville’s Lens: Centralism, Regime Change, and Peripheral Elites in Contemporary Peru" in Peru in Theory (ed. Paulo Drinot, Palgrave Macmillan, 2014 ISBN 9781137455260 doi:10.1057/9781137455260_2) on page 23 indicates the PDS was a merger of the Nationalist Agrarian Party and the Decentralist Party formed for the 1931 elections. Vegara notes the PDS won 33 of 145 seats in the 1931 Constituent Assembly election (there's some discrepancies with other sources on the the total number of seats won, which I assume has to do with the NAP seats being recorded as independents and the Decentralists separately). The party name could also be translated as Southern Decentralist Party. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Meaningless statement

Meaningless statement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Wholly unsourced, was recently moved from draft without improvement. Fails WP:GNG and WP:VERIFY. UtherSRG (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete The article is from a different age. Over 20 years ago. If memory serves my single source for what is clearly a personal coinage by David Hackett Fischer in his tome Historians Fallacies Toward a Logic of Historical Thought and with hindsight is too novel a concept for a General Encyclopedia. O, and if there is some faux pas in how I have formatted my view, edit freely. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. I had mistakenly Prodded the article because I missed that it was undeleted and not eligible.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Athena (yacht)

Athena (yacht) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

• Delete Not finding any sources that indicate notability. Current sources within article are only from sources that focus on yachts. :Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to the owner, James H. Clark, where a small section about his yachts can be constructed, in the absense of their being noteworthy enough for standalone articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hyperion (yacht)

Hyperion (yacht) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to the owner, James H. Clark, where a small section about his yachts can be constructed, especially since Hyperion was, per the article, the largest sloop ever built at the time. If not worthy of a standalone article, m+r makes sense. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Meets WP:GNG e.g:

• [34]
• [35]
• [36]
• [37]
• "Internet wizard sails Pounds 12m yacht from his desktop PC". The Sunday Times (London). 26 July 1998.(816 words)
• "Look Buoys - No Hands". Sunday Mail (Queensland, Australia). 20 September 1998.(522 words)
• "Webmaster steers virtual Mary Celeste". The Australian. 18 August 1998.(847 words)
• "In the pursuit of a Silicon wizard". The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec). 4 March 2000.(833 words)

This is significant in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources ----Pontificalibus 11:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Per the General Notability Guideline a topic is indeed presumed notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. However the GNG clarifies that "significant coverage" means sources that address the subject directly and in detail, going beyond mere mentions. This implies that trivial mentions — brief references without substantial information — do not contribute to establishing a topic's notability. skarz (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Aditi Saigal

Aditi Saigal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

References

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

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

  Zuck28 (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

• Delete: One film is not sufficient to pass WP:NACTOR. Need at-least three feature films/web series/TV to comply WP:ACTOR. Forbes 30 Under 30 is paid. Bakhtar40 (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  General comment: Two is enough. Guideline says: "multiple" not "several". -Mushy Yank. 14:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: coverage has her meet WP:GNG. At worst a redirect to The_Archies_(film)#Cast is totally warranted so opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 14:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails to meet WP:NACTRESS. RangersRus (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Indiana Blaze

Indiana Blaze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Socker team that fails WP:GNG. Absolutely no coverage. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Indiana. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to USL W-League (1995–2015)#Teams – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Iren Dimitrova

Iren Dimitrova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Pianist that fails WP:GNG. No in-depth sources found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: The page currently has a self-published source and [https://web.archive.org/web/20150528143345/http://www.ubmd.org/static_info.php?id=18 a list of her awards. Checked Google News and archive.org; found only passing mentions. LastJabberwocky (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Women, and Bulgaria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Akshay Chaturvedi

Akshay Chaturvedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable entrepreneur. The two Forbes India articles are mere puff pieces ([38] [39]), while the remaining sources provide only trivial coverage and do not demonstrate notability. Yuvaank (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and Delhi. Yuvaank (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Procyon117 (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Vingtaine du Rondin

Vingtaine du Rondin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No refs on the page since 2014. I'm not seeing much which could be described as substantive but maybe there is a book written about it offline. I've seen it appear as a point in jersey state statistics reports but I'm not sure if this would be considered enough notability for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Jersey. JMWt (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: I am a Jersey resident and I live in the parish of Trinity, which the Vingtaine due Rondin is one the five sub-divisions of. I think this stub was created by someone who created one for each of the 56 vingtaines irrespective of whether each was independently notable. I don't think this particular vingtaine is independently notable. If not deleted, it could be redirected to vingtaine? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete/redirect every item in Category:Vingtaines of Jersey. Get rid of one-sentence pages. Reywas92^Talk 13:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

IFIP Working Group 2.10

IFIP Working Group 2.10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Engineering, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Chaotica (software)

Chaotica (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete, per nomination. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 01:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Layered Image File Format

Layered Image File Format (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete, per nomination. I see it mentioned at Image file format#Other raster formats, but not every format listed there has its own article, so I think nothing would be lost by deleting it. I would also support draftifying the article if someone could show that it is the subject of instruction at schools or third-party manuals, per WP:NSOFT. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Kalayna Price

Kalayna Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Author best known for a 7-book fantasy series. I can only find reviews in Publishers Weekly for books number 1 [40], 5 [41], 6 [42], and 7 [43] in the series. Book 6 also has a second review in Library Journal [44]; however, this is the only one of the series that (barely) meets WP:NBOOK, and so I don't think the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR. Astaire (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Astaire (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: The reviews mentioned in the nom are more than we see for the majority of authors here in AfD. I'd argue they show critical notice, for a series of books for the last 15 yrs or so. It's not War and Peace, but we have some reviews over a span of time, that's the bare minimum for author notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  With 9 books written by this author and only 1 of them (barely) meeting NBOOK, and most of the coverage coming from a single source (Publishers Weekly), I just don't see this as a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. But maybe there's a different prevailing interpretation of NAUTHOR here at AFD. Astaire (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  If the author has a single book that passes NBOOK and that book is part of a series, I am generally inclined to either have a page on the author OR have a page on the series. This is because having an entry on say, book 6, would be generally undesirable because it's not very comprehensive, can lack some context for people wanting more information on the series and can generally be seen as an invitation to create (or recreate) articles on the author or other books.

  A series page usually satisfies the average person coming into Wikipedia, however sometimes I'll recommend author pages if the author has put out more than one series. It serves roughly the same purpose - giving a more comprehensive overview of everything and having a bibliography section for the multiple series also helps deter people from trying to re/create pages that would fail notability guidelines or otherwise be unnecessary.

  This is a situation where I'd recommend the author page simply because of the multiple series. That other series looks to have been cancelled, but it's possible that it might get picked up again or the author might put out other works. That said, this does need some general editing - for example, it's completely unnecessary to mention who is representing her. The page could also use a teensy bit more info about the Craft series. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  So the tl;dnr here is that while Price isn't a super fit for NAUTHOR, an author article is an easier way to impart information on her work, which has received some coverage. It's a case of IAR in that we're not exactly ignoring notability guidelines, just that since at least some part of her work is notable the author page is probably the most helpful way to impart info about that work to the reader. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Well, she has entries in Gale's Contemporary Authors (Gale H1000203928), and Something about the Author (Gale CX3773000061, accessible via TWL), but the contents of the two, while not the same, are extremely similar. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  They help satisfy AUTHOR. Small coverage but we have a few of them together. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Linotype-Hell DaVinci

Linotype-Hell DaVinci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Galgotias University

Galgotias University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge from Galgotias College was suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galgotias College. Thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of colleges affiliated to the Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow - per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galgotias College. Sourcing here is even more parlous - there is certainly nothing here favouring retention, but the redirect ATD is in order for the same reasons. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Mason Lamb

Mason Lamb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this American soccer player. JTtheOG (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Florida. JTtheOG (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: The four sources in the article currently consist of two player profiles that mainly appear to list stats, a roster announcement that provides one passing mention of the subject when listing players joining and currently on the team, and a game summary that mentions the subject scoring a goal in that game. This appears to be more routine coverage, especially considering none of the included sources appear to provide more than a mention or two of him. Searching his name to potentially search for other sources brings up some more game summaries in which he is mentioned briefly, his name being mentioned on a list of people graduating from Clemson in 2024, a mention on a few lists of people eligible for the 2025 MLS Draft, and roster pages. I don’t see anything that shows why this subject requires a standalone article, as from what I can see, it fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 08:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 22:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 22:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Sharjah Sustainable City

Sharjah Sustainable City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is no reliably sourced coverage of the subject. None of the sourcing in this article is independent of the UAE government, resulting in a ludicrously credulous and promotional article of this UAE government project. Thenightaway (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Eads Mill, West Virginia

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Eads Mill, West Virginia
• Articles for deletion/Eads Mill, West Virginia (2nd nomination)

Eads Mill, West Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is just a mill, not a community. Nothing has changed since the previous deletion and the article should not have been recreated.

Note to closer: Please remove, not just delink, from articles and templates that link here. –dlthewave ☎ 04:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and West Virginia. –dlthewave ☎ 04:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Topo maps do not show a community at this location. Google Maps indicates there is an Eads Mill Road that leads to the mill's former site – while I suppose these scattered homes could be a set of neighbors considered a "community", I see nothing to suggest this is a notable place. I've prodded the also-recently-created Adams, West Virginia that is not a community of any sort – rather baffled why anyone would continue to create articles sourced only to the WP:GNIS – please don't! Reywas92^Talk 04:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: my usual position is that even tiny villages that once existed and no longer do are entitled to stubs articles indicating where they were located and any historical information about them. However, here all I was able to find was that there were a few houses in the vicinity on the 1913 topographical map (Bluefield Quadrangle—I note that the modern map cited in the article is "Athens Quadrangle", which is correct, but it links to the wrong map), and likely also the 1926 map (given that they were so close together, I checked the earliest one). The name "Eads Mill" appears on all of the maps I checked, including the 1957, 1976, and current maps, but apart from the houses in the earliest maps, I couldn't see any structures. The 1957 map isn't that helpful due to its scale, so it might not have shown any structures; but I suspect any that were there might have been eliminated when the freeway was constructed at the site, probably before the 1968 map was made.

I thought perhaps there might have been a post office, which would be evidence of at least a nominal community. However, checking U.S. Appointments of Postmasters for Mercer County back to 1857 I could not find any entries for Eads Mill. My conclusion is that there may have been a small community clustered around the site of a former mill, but that it has been a ghost town since at least the 1960s. More research could probably confirm this, and perhaps tell us something about its beginning, including the mill it's named after. My inclination is still to preserve it as a stub article indicating where this is and describing it as a former community. However, it seems to have been quite minimal. P Aculeius (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying in the name of preserving content and considering alternatives to deletion, however at this point we only have WP:GNIS which is not a reliable source for the "unincorporated community" designation. Looking at a name on a map, seeing a few buildings nearby and saying "this may have been a community" is original research and runs counter to WP:GEOFEAT. No further sources were found through two prior AfDs but by all means please do any further research that you think is necessary to confirm the existence of a community here. –dlthewave ☎ 16:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Beehype

Beehype (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Websites, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: In case this article is kept, Please move the article to Beehype (redirect to itself). Current title includes unnessesary disambiguation. Thanks and no opinion on the AFD itself. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
  • The article has now been moved (mid-AfD). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment The Oxford Handbook of Social Media and Music Learning refers to it as a source of info on emerging musicians and bands in Poland [45]. That's a book from a very reputable publisher using it as a source. Apart from that, I'm still searching for Beehype -honey, as it's also the name of at least one brand of honey. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Galgotias College

Galgotias College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

I agree. This article doesn't quite reach WP:GNG. Probably should merge this with Galgotias University ZImperator (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of colleges affiliated to the Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow. I was tempted to leave for the soft delete, which is also acceptable, but we have a mention on that page, and it is one of the many such affiliated colleges, so the WP:ATD is also acceptable. It is a private college, and the relevant SNG is therefore WP:NORG, not just GNG. What we have on the page is a lot of primary sourcing but also apparently a few articles about the college. The articles, however, contain the full college logo, e.g. [46] and this is a certain sign, along with the glowing prose, that we are in WP:NEWSORGINDIA territory, and so these sources are not independent and cannot be used. We certainly don't have sources at WP:ORGDEPTH, and the nom.'s assessment is quite right. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Takis Sakellariou

Takis Sakellariou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG - clearly falls into WP:LUGSTUBS. Réunion! 03:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Sportspeople, Olympics, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• That Olympedia gives him a decent-size bio strongly indicates that he was notable. What we need to do is search Greek sources. Has that been done? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - Die Olympischen Kunstwettbewerbe 1912-1948 (The Olympic Art Competitions 192-1948) covers the olympic artwork, but with little beyond. [47] He also gets multiple mentions in A Pacifist's Life and Death: Grigorios Lambrakis and Greece in the Long Shadow of Civil War [48], although these are not biographical of him. That's all I found so far. That is not a GNG pass yet, but may indicate there is more to be found. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Roshena Campbell

Roshena Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unelected candidate. Fails WP:NPOL. All sources currently pertain to her candidacy in the 2023 Aston by-election where she was unsuccessful. Sources relating to her local government role do not provide significant coverage. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Politics, and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: Melbourne is a big city. Its council members are likely to be notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  Definitely the Lord Mayor but other than that, no other local government members have inherit notability (in my opinion). GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Not only is the Deputy Lord Mayor of Australia's largest city an inherently notable position, but contrary to the claim in the nomination it's also an elected one, which she won in 2024: we even have an article about it at 2024 Melbourne City Council election. She was previously also elected to the council in 2020 and that election, too, is notable enough to have an article: 2020 Melbourne City Council election. Last but not least, it's trivial to find WP:RS that do not involve the 2023 by-election, and here's a selection:
  • She was a star Liberal candidate. The party passed (2021)
  • From barrister to Deputy Lord Mayor: Roshena Campbell shares her vision for the city’s future (2025)
  • Heated exchange at lord mayor forum in Southbank sparks war of words between rival teams (2024)
  • Nick Reece picks Roshena Campbell as his running mate (2024)

Jpatokal (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. Per Wikipedia:POLOUTCOMES, mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". While she is not Lord Mayor, she is a citywide elected official as Deputy Lord Mayor and ran on a ticket with the incumbent Lord Mayor. The City of Melbourne (population 149,000) is a regionally significant city. That fact, combined with the coverage shown by Jpatoka, tells me that the subject LIKELY warrants an individual article depending on the specifics of the position (i.e. powers/responsibilities). I would need to know these before voting. If this were purely a city councilor who ran in a by-election, I would be a delete vote, so I'm really staking this on citywide officeholder with a real job in regionally significant city who has the coverage Jpatoka has identified.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  For context, since Australian municipal structures are a bit odd: the lowercase-c city of Melbourne is Australia's largest, with over 5.2 million people scattered across 31 "local government areas" (LGA). The uppercase-c City of Melbourne is the LGA covering the entire city center, and while the population living within the LGA is relatively low, its Lord Mayor & council wields outsize influence because they directly control zoning etc for all the largest businesses, restaurants, nightlife, transport hubs etc etc, and they're also the closest thing there is to a leader of the entire city.

  As a rough US analogy, it would be like if New York City didn't have a single mayor, but instead had a "Mayor of Manhattan", and there were 30 other boroughs, not 4. Jpatokal (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Mpen320: As far as I am aware from doing a bit of research the deputy Lord Mayor has the same power/responsibilities as a regular council expect they sub in for the Lord Mayor when they are away. For a bit of context, these are some of the sources available for the Deputy Lord Mayor of Sydney [49]. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Laleshwar Singh

Laleshwar Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. This one was marked for notability concerns 2 years ago. The provided sources do not establish notability. This is a directory listing. this is 2 short mentions. this appears dead. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, and South America. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Cassidy (musician)

Cassidy (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No apparent notability outside of the band Antigone Rising. The majority of the page is unsourced solo work. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, California, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Keren Oxman

Keren Oxman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I do not think this artist meets WP:ARTIST yet, lacking secondary source coverage or WP:GNG Zenomonoz (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not finding anything in a BEFORE search to substantiate the notability of this artist who is at the beginning of her career. I'm holding off on !voting for now to do a deeper search, but all I'm finding is non-independent mentions of her from connected sources, and also finding social media posts and user submitted content. I am finding quite a few hits about her sister Neri due to a high-profile plagiarism case, but that is no reflection on this artist. Leaning towards delete unless enough independent reliable sources can be found to meet WP:NARTIST. I just ran it thru Earwigs and it's 90% copyright violation, WP:COPYVIO which I will remove from the article. Netherzone (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and New York. Netherzone (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - This was previously speedy deleted on 11 July 2023 under the G8 and A7 criteria. No improvement since it was crafted by User:Kerenoxman in 2023, which I'm assuming was an autobiography.[50] The artist does not meet WP criteria for inclusion as a notable person per WP:NARTIST nor GNG. I'm not finding anything substantial in a BEFORE, and the current sourcing consists of the blog Freshpaint which looks to be user-submitted photos with zero editorial content; her own website; a user-submitted bio for a residency (text taken directly from her own website); and a link to a name check for working as a team assistant for one of her sister Neri Oxman's projects at the Pompedou Center. A before search reveals her social media posts and PR, but nothing of substance. No notable shows, no works in permanent collections of notable museums or national galleries, or any of the kind of coverage we would expect for a notable artist. Maybe in a few years but it's definitely WP:TOOSOON at this time. And possible PROMO. Netherzone (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Sam Switzer

Sam Switzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

• Delete: This is for another person [51], that gets coverage... I don't see much for this Sam, we do have confirmation of his journal papers in Gscholar. I don't see that his work on the after effects in Hiroshima were notable, with only a blip when they were published (I suppose it's not a bad thing that we've never had to study it again), but I'm not showing notability. Appears to have had a low citation index, but it's been a while so studies on radiation after-effects likely don't get used much. I don't see that the awards won add much to notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep -- Staff-written obituary in the New York Times is one of the gold standards of notability, particularly further back in time before we would expect citations of work to be digitized. As @Ira Leviton notes, he's a single-authored writer of a New England Journal of Medicine article, so clearly not getting his obits based just on a traffic accident. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

ExitMundi.nl

ExitMundi.nl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

I oppose deletion, but I actually think it would be best if this would be part of an article about Maarten Keulemans (which is now a redirect). Maarten Keulemans has become sufficiently notable since the article about ExitMundi.nl was written. Dajasj (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as FRINGE failing the GNG. Maybe Maarten Keulemans passes the GNG. He had the stories of this website bundled into a book, regardless won a prize, and did other stuff. I can't say for sure until I see it. gidonb (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Well, the text in sources 2 and 3 is about as long as the text of the nomination above, both brief. The other two don't open, so that's no help. The website is mentioned twice in trivial mentions in Gbooks, this for example [52]. We don't have anything extensive, I don't think these are enough to use for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  One of the last snapshots was in 2023 from the Wayback Machine [53], I'm not even sure we'd consider it a reliable source RS for use here, not sure how that affects notability, but it would be classified as a blog today. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Murder of Andreen McDonald

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Murder of Andreen McDonald
• Articles for deletion/Murder of Andreen McDonald (2nd nomination)

Murder of Andreen McDonald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Texas. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• I'm on the fence for this one. I found a few local sources, which seem to have been covered in the previous discussion. The only other one I found was an article at A&E, but it's promotional for their TV show and of questionable reliability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: Per nomination "Yeah, it came up again during the trial but then faded out after that. I don’t think people need to keep talking about it forever for it to matter. The fact that both the incident and the trial got enough attention and were covered by reliable sources shows it’s definitely notable." Afro 📢Talk! 12:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Afrowriter Not per the relevant notability guideline of WP:NEVENT. None of the sources are secondary as required for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  @PARAKANYAA Honestly, I'm just tired of this topic, my friend. It got a lot of coverage—even beyond the U.S. I remember back in 2020, I was traveling from Cameroon back to Azerbaijan after the Christmas holidays when I first came across it. And then, years later, it resurfaced again just last year in which i decided to draft the article —it even came up on the 48 Hours podcast. Afro 📢Talk! 05:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  Found This [54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66] I found this as well, although I'm not entirely sure about it because of the byline. [67] Afro 📢Talk! 06:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  The documentary is OK actually. Otherwise this is not much better. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - What do you want? There were two Keeps and one Delete last time. FYI - there are 28 sources from the Atlanta Black Star, WOAI TV, Yahoo News, CBS News, San Antonio Express-News, KSAT news - etc. etc. Stuff happens, the media and public react, and then we all move on. These are legitimate sources. Maybe you could let us know where you think this needs more. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Maile66 For it to meet any aspect of WP:NEVENT? If we all move on it is not notable. All of the sources are WP:PRIMARYNEWS so none count for GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  • FYI - I removed the image, as it was an image of an island town in Spain. The caption said it was San Antonio, Texas in 2019. San Antonio, Texas is actually several hundred miles inland. — Maile (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Per my comment above, along with the sources provided. Afro 📢Talk! 07:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

50 Greatest Album Covers

50 Greatest Album Covers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Television. /over.throws/^✎ 23:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I'm always intrigued when sporadically contributing accounts miss a BEFORE. IMDB notes its existence and agrees with the presenters listed here. While certainly not a RS itself, it suggests that this is real and not fabricated. WP:BCASTOUTCOMES and WP:NTVLOCAL suggests that RS coverage should exist for this somewhere even if we cannot find it. Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  I was aware the subject had an IMDB, and I left it out because it did not contribute to establishing baseline notability. In addition, I found contemporaneous newspaper sources that only include mention of the program in their TV guides (not sigcov). I don't think that this program, which is distinguished in this case by it being a short-lived, one-off program with minimal coverage available to us, attains notability by dint of being on national television. /over.throws/^✎ 14:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  You saw IMDB in your BEFORE and didn't note that in your nomination statement, noting instead "only forums discussing the list" were found? Do you understand why that material misstatement might be a problem? Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Sure, I'll concede that I left out IMDB in the nom. /over.throws/^✎ 17:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Feeling maybe merge to album cover. Nothing objective to the list. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. A one-shot TV show, not a miniseries as the article claims, isn't notable in itself. Also, an IMDb entry means absolutely nothing in terms of notability. If it did, thousands and thousands of journeyman actors, shorts, backstage workers, stuntpeople, etc. would qualify. Sorry, set production assistant Jeff Pittman. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of programs broadcast by VH1 Another time-filler countdown show on VH1, which that network seemed to have an entire farm of in the noughts. Also not helping is the text of the article has all the tells of being LLM-generated. Certainly not opposed to full deletion otherwise. Also I never look at IMDb for any source at all when it comes to AfD (and haven't for over a decade) because it's user-generated, so I do not begrudge the nom for not noting that at all. Nathannah • 📮 15:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

ETA Also the entire list is a copyright violation (sourced to a forum), so that's more egregious here. Nathannah • 📮 19:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Electrum (software)

Electrum (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All prior XfDs for this page: Articles for deletion/Electrum Bitcoin Wallet

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Pollia (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Please check the history of the article. The article already was nominated for deletion and after discussion it was agreed to keep it. Then someone simply removed almost everything from the article. This is an important software in the cryptocurrencies area. Stokito (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I understand that Electrum is widely used in the cryptocurrency community, but popularity alone does not establish notability on Wikipedia. As outlined in WP:GNG, notability requires significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. While the article was previously kept, the current content and references do not demonstrate the kind of in-depth, independent coverage required for inclusion. If there are reliable, independent sources from the prior discussion that meet these standards, they should be reintroduced and clearly cited. Without such sources, the article does not meet Wikipedia’s guidelines for notability. Pollia (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Pollia what is [WP:NONCRYPTO] supposed to represent here? There is no policy/essay/guideline under WP:NONCRYPTO and although there are some discussions about reliability of certain outlets there isn't PAG (to my knowledge) that says all cryptocurrency-focused outlets are not accepted for notability. Oblivy (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I was referring to WP:NONCRYPTO, which is an accepted guideline discussing how cryptocurrency-related articles should be held to the same notability standards as any other topic. It’s true there is no policy excluding all cryptocurrency-focused outlets, but the guideline emphasizes that they must meet WP:RS standards and demonstrate significant, independent coverage. If you feel the article’s sources meet these criteria, we should carefully examine them. However, at this time, the sources provided don’t seem to establish notability under these guidelines. Pollia (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: The sources already present in the article are sufficient to show notability, along with additional sources discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrum Bitcoin Wallet. In-depth reviews in mainstream publications are not "routine coverage". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  If you believe the current sources demonstrate notability, could you identify which specific references meet WP:GNG by providing significant, independent coverage? The article presently relies heavily on niche or cryptocurrency-focused outlets that do not appear to meet the standards of WP:RS. Without additional coverage in more widely recognized, independent publications, it’s difficult to argue that the topic is notable under Wikipedia’s guidelines. Pollia (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  The Techradar review and Money.com review are reliable, mainstream publications with in-depth coverage. Although not in the article, additional sources were highlighted at the last AfD, particularly SmartSE's comment. All of the sources in that comment except for Business Insider are generally reliable, and none of the sources are "crypto-focused" publications. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note It seems that the renaming of this article may have been an attempt to better align the title with Wikipedia’s guidelines on naming conventions. However, while the new title might reflect more common usage or improved clarity, it’s important to ensure that the content of the article and its sources meet Wikipedia’s core policies, such as WP:GNG and WP:RS. Pollia (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)