Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 27	April 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Gavin Lochow

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

College athlete that does not appear to meet the criteria laid out in WP:NCOLLATH or in WP:GNG. The coverage is limited to stats pages, routine local coverage of high school sports games the subject played in, a single human interest story from a local Dayton, Ohio news outlet, and local coverage of winning an award from the West Virginia Sportswriters Association. Appears at first glance as a mostly fluff page written by an acquaintance of the subject. nf utvol (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. nf utvol (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Gavilanes

(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) 23:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Florida, New Jersey, New York, and South Carolina. JTtheOG (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft? SIGCOV? You know you can work with WP:BASIC, anyway, I see some useful hits, but most are WP:ROUTINE from my perspective. Possible a better article can be built, but I am not really seeing it. So delete or draft for me. Govvy (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Ödman

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Games, and Internet. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Malta, Sweden, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I think there are enough references or notability. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 06:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really seeing any references here that are independent, significant, and establish notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't see any significant coverage in the article references or searching for news sites. AlexandraAVX (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any reference analysis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linfen highway accident

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and China. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There was a followup report last month [1] which placed blame for the crash on local authorities and the bus company, the Jiajun Transport Company. The news report is by Xinhua News Agency, but this is regular, factual reporting so it should be okay for saying there was an investigation that blamed X and Y factors. Very similar reports appear to have been printed in a number of Chinese language newspapers, but they don't go any more in depth than that (judging from Google translate). If we had an article on the transport company or the highway I would probably support a merge there, but we don't and the sourcing is very much just primary news reports, not enough to pass NEVENT. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 18:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Medina bus crash

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Saudi Arabia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, routine coverage, fails WP:NEVENT jolielover♥talk 16:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oaxaca migrant bus crash

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Mexico. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qatari involvement in higher education in the United States

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

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

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

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

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

Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG with sources like [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. A rename to something like "Foreign donations..." might be appropriate, since Qatar is the largest donor but other countries such as Saudi Arabia and China are also involved. The ISGAP/NCRI reports have been mentioned in reliable sources, so claiming that "Wikipedia should not amplify" them is puzzling. Also puzzling is the claim that the page "overwhelmingly deals with one issue" - yes, that is what a single Wikipedia page is expected to do. Other complaints about "undue weight" and "speculation" are content disputes about what should be in the article, not about whether it should exist. Astaire (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify - I agree that this article meets WP:GNG. My contention is that I do not believe this is encyclopedic content. The central claim of the article is that Qatar is somehow causing antisemitism at American universities. There is no mechanism for this proposed, and the burden of proof is not met by the article's content or sources. This is unencyclopedic content matching the description in WP:NOTADV and its deletion would fall under WP:DEL-REASON #7. Manyyassin (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anywhere in the article where the claim "Qatar is funding antisemitism" is being made in wikivoice. Where present in the article, this claim is always properly attributed to critics (although the sentence This biased approach highlights positive aspects of Islam while sidelining balanced discussions about other religions, particularly Judaism. should be rewritten to make it clear that this is the Lawfare Project's opinion).

If there are others who argue against these critics in reliable sources, then they should be included as per WP:DUE. Otherwise, since you agree that this topic meets GNG, this discussion is better suited for a place like WP:NPOVN. The article may need some reworking to put more emphasis on the facts and less emphasis on speculation, but it should not be deleted. Astaire (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The references no. 12 - 16 mentioned at Qatari involvement in higher education in the United States#References easily confirm that notability exists. Shankargb (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing it's not notable, but the balance on this article is so overtly against the issue that there is no opposing side and we require neutrality and balance. Nathannah • 📮 23:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree that it's a notable topic then what are we doing here at AFD? As I said above, this is a content dispute, not an argument for deletion. WP:NPOV says that articles should represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. If you don't like the current balance of opinions in the article then add some opposing opinions that have been published in RS. Otherwise this is just WP:ITSNOTNEUTRAL and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Astaire (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't just WP:NPOV. The burden of proof is not met and the speculations made by the thinktanks are not verifiable. There is no onus on the other side to refute these claims and balance out the article; the lack of evidence means these claims shouldn't be here in the first place. Manyyassin (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a coatrack. Most of the sources appear to be either opinion pieces or from biased sources. I think an article can be written on the subject but it is not encyclopedic in its current form. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not all sources are like that. Need proper source analysis. Shankargb (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree with the nom's assertion that the majority of this article falls under WP:NOTADVOCACY. The article attempts to describe the topic from a NPOV, but I do think WP:UNDUE weight is given to the subject of antisemitism and Qatar's influence on it. However, the article meets WP:GNG, so it can be improved and balanced out. There's no reason to delete it.--DesiMoore (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana Olympic Association

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard van den Bergh

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

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

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

Merge (selectively) into Solko van den Bergh, his father, where Gerard is missing entirely. It would be a good ATD and would strengthen the target. gidonb (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gidonb: Would you be willing to take another look, given the article has been expanded? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Always! gidonb (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:HEY. After expansion and referencing, there is enough coverage to piece a good article together and sufficient context for a permanent biography. As others pointed out, it's still not ideal, however, the subject is long dead so BLP does not apply by any stretch of the imagination. gidonb (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's nothing to merge here that's relevant to the proposed merge-target other than "Solko van den Bergh's son was also an Olympian". Complete failure of WP:NSPORTS. FOARP (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not completely true. I think you’re not an expert in this field. He was not only just simply “an Olympian”. He’s a multiple world championships medalist and had a sports career of at least 12 years at the highest level. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After expansion there is don’t agree with “nothing to merge here that's relevant… …other than that he was an Olympian. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note I see in Dutch newspapers he represented the Netherlands at many more international tournaments. There is also coverage about him in the major national competitions. I will add the coming days when I have time. For instance what I saw when scanning some of the many many articles content that is not yet in the article: large amount of international and national competitions, 1913 master shooter, secretary and treasurer of National Netherlands Pistol and Revolver Association, over multiple years, He was the corps gunner. Some might still argue these are not the most extensive articles yet. True, but there is many more and in my opinion writing his entire career with such content I think WP:Basic apply “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability”. I will see if my assumptions is true when I have time writing it. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They still need to have WP:SIGCOV, which these are not. The first of these is a single-sentence mention ("De Heer G. v. d. Bergh te Looisduinen verwierf het meesterschap mit 48 cartons", which in machine translation reads "Mr. G. v. d. Bergh of Looisduinen wins the championship with 48 cartons [presumably this is "cartridges"]". The second is just a bare mention of his name. The third discusses a mister S.J. van den Bergh - not the same person, and a G.A. van den Bergh who is also not necessarily the same person, giving no real coverage to either. Ditto the fourth link. FOARP (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My Dutch is reasonably good, but cartons stumped me a little - presumably because it is a shooting term and I know little about shooting. But I do know that in revolver shooting, cartridges is probably wrong, and this term probably pertains to the target, which would be a card. In the first sentence there is a 60 shot card (kaart) that scores 480 points, because that would be a target card with concentric rings. The second sentence refers to a revolver event that is lower scoring, and I presume "cartons" refers to a simple hit on target. My translation of the whole paragraph would be: "One becomes a master pistol shooter by achieving at least 480 points on a 60-shot target. Mr. A. Bouwens from The Hague achieved this result with 508 points. One becomes a master revolver shooter on a master target-card of 60 shots, on which 45 successful hits were achieved. Mr. G. v. d. Bergh from Loosduinen achieved the mastership with 48 successful hits. Also in the Vaderland and Loosduinen competition, there was good shooting and many standings were improved." In any case, it is not SIGCOV. It is a one sentence primary source news report of a competition score. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FOARP and because we do not have sources for an article. I don't think merge is in order, as we don't have anything really to merge there. I would consider an appropriate redirect, but not entirely sure that redirecting to his father is the best target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After the article has been expanded significantly, I don’t see this as a valid reason anymore. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note I expanded the article using Dutch newspaper articles. I’ve studied the first 130 article of the 1609 search results. When I have time, I can continue writing about him. At the time of moving the article to draft space it was this versus [13] this as the current version.
Article is significantly expanded after nomination. Keep per WP:Basic “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability”. Note, the info in the article is from newspaper prose, so not just from listed sports results. Also note, during the early 20th century newspapers only had a low number of pages and short sports article. One or several sentences about him in such articles are not trivial mentions. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC's next sentence reads: Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. It is interesting that you found sources such as the suggestion his shooting was off on the day because of a strong wind blowing, but this is a primary source. Everything else is too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers are reliable sources. Newspapers are not always primary sources. As writing the results is primary, giving an analysis in a later article is secondary “A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts”. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Every single one of the sources added here is just a brief mention of van den Bergh. Simply cobbling together news-reports about sporting events that do not give significant to the subject of the article is not the way to write a biographical article and does not satisfy our notability requirements. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. FOARP (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you like correctness, you should say “In my opinion simply cobbling together…” 95.98.65.177 (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the excellent expansion performed which satisfies NBASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. That an excellent article of ~600 words can be written here shows it satisfies this. We should especially realize the subject here, an offline era, 1910s-era world championship medalist shooter and national champion. It is likely that there would be further offline sources as well. Regardless, what we have should be sufficient to satisfy NBASIC, and further, I'll say that deleting this does not pose any benefit to the encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"That an excellent article of ~600 words can be written here..." - Yes, truly our readers need to know what the wind was like in London in 1908... FOARP (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it was for that reason he had a poor 1908 Olympic performance, yes, it may be relevant to mention. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It, specifically, was not given as a reason why he had a poor performance in the source used to support that statement. The piece does not say that his poor performance was the result of that. What it says is:
"Het schieten viel tegen, doordat de schuters geheel onbeschut waren tegen den dwars over de schietbaan saanden wind, welke zoo nu en dan gelijk een storm loeide. Voor de vreemdelingen vooral was dit schietterrein een groote handicap."

Which in machine translation says:
"The shooting was disappointing, because the shooters were completely exposed to the wind blowing across the shooting range, which occasionally howled like a storm. For the foreigners especially, this shooting range was a great handicap."

There literally isn't anything in that article about van der Bergh specifically other than listing him as one of "the shooters"

And that's just that one sentence. There's other parts of the "excellent" article that have van der Bergh winning "bronze" and "silver" in 1911-12 at world championship events that didn't officially start until 1947. But this is what's bound to happen where you over-interpret sources that don't really say anything about the subject you are trying to write about. FOARP (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are accusing me of over-interpreting, while it’s just stating what reliable sources are stating. ISSF World Shooting Championships mentions the years as World Championships editions; and the most recent 2023 ISSF World Shooting Championships starts with “53rd edition”. Also the ISSF website list the pre WW-II events as World Championships. Apart from that there was good coverage of the event those years, and it was named world championships in sources see for instance here. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It being recognised as one under the ISSF’s auspices is entirely retrospective, as is the idea that “gold”, “silver”, and “bronze” “medals” were awarded at it.

There was no “ISSF world championship” held in 1911. It is also dubious that medals were awarded as such then.

You have created an article that takes general statements about groups of competitors and mispresents them as true of the subject specifically, or relays opinions (”first class”) as if they were facts. FOARP (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Im just writings what Olympedia is indicating. And note that at the early Olympics no medals were awarded. Have you for instance seen the gold silver bronze at 1903 ISSF World Shooting Championships. So stop blaming me please. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that these databases include what is essentially wrong information for statistical purposes is the entire reason why articles should not be based solely on them. FOARP (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn’t base your reasoning purely on 1 sentence you found somewhere; as sources pre World War II are naming it World Championships and the governing body indicates that it were world championships. Also all other Wikipedia articles doesn’t agree with you. So it the general consensus is against you, don’t start shouting please. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"base your reasoning purely on 1 sentence you found somewhere" - You've just written an article based entirely on single-sentence (or less) mentions. 07:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC) FOARP (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing that this is good practice, so I don’t see your point. But start having the feeling we’re arguing in circles. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely nothing even close to approaching a source containing IRS SIGCOV as required by SPORTSCRIT. BASIC is not met through trivial and primary coverage, and does not make a topic exempt from the SC5 requirement anyway. That a litany of trivial mentions in rosters and primary results and extrapolation from indirect commentary can be spun into 100s of words of prose is exactly why the state of the article is completely irrelevant to determining notability. We dismiss precisely this kind of routine, trivial coverage when assessing notability for modern athletes, why on earth would we make an exception for those from the 1920s (especially when they were nowhere near as competitive as modern Olympians)?
1. Name in a list N. 2. Name in a list N. 3. Name in a list N. 4. Database N. 5. Name in a list N. 6. Passing mention in primary event results N. 7. Name in a list N. 8. Name in a list (basically) N. 9. Trivial mention in primary event results N. 10. Name in a list N. 11. Database N. 12. Name in a list N. 13. Name in a list N. 14. Name in a list N. 15. Name in a list N. 16. Passing mention in primary event results N. 17. Passing mention in primary event results N. 18. Name in a list N. 19. Name in a list N. 20. Trivial mention in primary results N. 21. Passing mention in primary event results N. 22. Name in a list N. 23. Trivial mention in list N. 24. Name in list N. JoelleJay (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Accoring to WP:Basic: trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 08:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The outcome of WP:NSPORTS2022 was that there had to be at least one instance of IRS SIGCOV ("There is a rough consensus that sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject"). That requirement - born out of hundreds of discussions just like this one - is a hard line that can not be addressed by trying to assemble single-sentence mentions, however numerous. FOARP (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are pointing to a rough community consensus. So that can be overridden by WP:BASIC or an AfD consensus. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The term "rough consensus" is generally used for any consensus at a major RfC, and anyway the lead statement of the close also says Proposal 5 had a substantial amount of support and participation, and there is a consensus to add an inclusion criterion for sports biographies requiring that they have at least one reference to a source which has significant coverage of the subject. 1000+ AfDs, and mass-draftifications of further thousands of articles, have reaffirmed this consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I don't see a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note I further expanded the article, most notably that he was the president of the Dutch shooting association and that he was co-founder of the Union Internationale de Tir (nowadays called International Shooting Sport Federation). 95.98.65.177 (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note And lets continue: Van den Berg is credited for the establishment of a "main moment in the history of the Royal Dutch Shooting Federation" by organizing a successful shooting tournament next to the 1928 Summer Olympics in Amsterdam where shooting was not included. [14] 95.98.65.177 (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More brief mentions - including in Nazi occupation-era newspapers to boot. On this basis, what other articles could be written about totally non-notable people briefly mentioned by a Nazi-era newspaper? For example I see the same page mentions a competition for a military march which was won by a certain Willem Klinkert of Nijmegen: are they now notable? And what about the 20-30 other people mentioned by name on the same page? Can we now just trawl through sources like this and say "on X date NAME did Y[link]" without any source ever actually taking the time to discuss the topic in detail?

I'm very sorry to go in to depth about this but WP:NONAZIS is actually a pretty serious rule: but did you not look at all at the stuff that's on that page? The speech by Anton Mussert about National Socialism? Did nothing strike you as amiss at all there? Or was your entire focus just on mining anything you could find for brief mentions to string something together here?

In no other area is it thought acceptable to try to string together a narrative through brief mentions in literal Nazi press like this. FOARP (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citing wikipedia Algemeen Handelsblad was an influential Amsterdam-based liberal daily newspaper published between 1828 and 1970. And according to the Dutch Wikipedia "During the first year of the occupation of the Netherlands by Nazi Germany between May 1940 and May 1945, Handelsblad initially opposed any interference by the occupiers... ...The paper excelled in veiled anti-German expressions, for example by unexpectedly interrupting mandatory war reports halfway through. As a result, the number of subscribers grew to an unprecedented level".

I don't know the others people mentioned in the newspaper. They may or may not be notable, but that is not the discussion here (OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Here we are trying to find consensus regarding to this specific person.95.98.65.177 (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So the bit where on the same page it describes repeated applause for statements like "We owe our lives to Adolf Hitler" ("ons leven habben wij te danken Adolf Hitler") - that not spark even the slightest concern on your part? Not even a bit? FOARP (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note he is credited for making national and international impact as president of the Dutch shooting association [15]. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Naar wij in De Scherpschutter lezen heeft...." ("As we read in the "De Scherpschutter"...). Literally a report from the in-house magazine of the KVvNS. Not independent. FOARP (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note I expaned the article regarding the 1900 Summer Olympics where he won the boys 200 meter rifle event. NOC*NSF is paying attention to this victory and there is still an ongoing discussion about giving Van den Bergh recognition as an Olympic champion. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is, yet again, another passing mention in a long list of names ("Het IOC erkent deze niet als olympisch, omdat dit wedstrijden waren voor professionals (Meijers en Cordang) of een jeugdwedstrijd (Van den Bergh)" or in machine translation "The IOC does not recognise these as Olympic, because these were competitions for professionals (Meijers and Cordang) or a youth competition (Van den Bergh).")

What would be helpful, instead of these repeated updates, is to identify one (1) source that actually covers van den Bergh in detail, such as a multi-paragraph biographical article or obituary. FOARP (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It depends which article you mean, De Sportwereld has a long list with names, the other articles are about 4 people including Van den Bergh. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I'm just tired of pointing out the same thing over and over so this is the last time I will bother: the other articles only briefly mention van den Bergh (de Volksrant: "...en de schutter Gerard Anne van den Bergh, die met militair geweer over 200 meter bij de junioren de beste was", OmroepVenlo: "...en de winnaar van 200 meter militair geweer bij de junioren Gerard Anne van den Bergh."). These are passing mentions. What is need is significant coverage, such as, for example, a multi-paragraph biographical piece or obituary. Let me know if you find something like that. FOARP (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just doing some research and list notable aspects of this person. But thanks for your comments.

A multi paragraph biography is indeed welcome, but not necessarily necessary, because in that case the WP:BASIC guideline wouldn't be needed with: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". 95.98.65.177 (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look, no! You are going about this the wrong way. And I don't wholly blame you. It is a common problem. But Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. That is by policy and design. What it is not is a history project. If you scrape together whatever you can from primary sources about the subject, and synthesise these into an article, what you are doing is that you are writing the biography. You are writing the secondary source here, because you are carrying out a history project. And if we were hosting history projects, that would be excellent work on your part. But we are not doing that. We have a policy that there must be no original research. We need someone else to have done this - whether formally in a book or thesis or less formally in documentaries, essays, articles or papers.
Note that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and tertiary by design. You can't place your original research here. However there are other wiki projects that allow and encourage original research. Wikibooks for instance. If you wanted to write a wiki sports compendium book with all these biographies, that would be the project you should be looking at. But Wikipedia is not the place for this. If there are no secondary sources, there should be no article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What parts of the article are original research? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your compliment naming it an excellent work. But I don’t understand your point as all sources are reliable (newspaper) sources. And note that newspaper article summarizing history are secondary sources like [16] and [17]. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ymer Abili

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Australia. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support draftify as WP:ATD. There is some coverage, but only mentioning the fact that he is a young player making his debut in the Australian Cup. Svartner (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I fully agree with the BLP1E, but I think that the subject also exhibits high potential for notability in the (somewhat) near future given his age. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! However, this is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. If/once the subject receives more coverage, an article about the subject would be justified. However, it's too early as of right now, and so deletion would be the best course of option. The article can be easily undeleted in the future. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly has enough coverage, see e.g. SMH/The Roar etc. Giant Snowman 12:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per GiantSnowman. I agree that he has enough good sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - The coverage is not sufficient for GNG. There is a case that this will increase (although hard to be sure how soon), and the page creater is active and !voted here, so it seems unlikely it will be abandoned if sources arise. This seems like an acceptable ATD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, opinion is divided between Keep or Draftify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I've removed the ref to theroar as it is clearly fan-written SPS. YOUNGATH sets a higher requirement for coverage than is supplied by SMH, and anyway that story appears to be BLP1E. If he garners more attention having now signed, the article can be moved back to mainspace. JoelleJay (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete. The subject is notable for one event WP:BLP1E, and I couldn't find any coverage from 2023 to present. The subject may become noteworthy in the future, but as of now it seems WP:TOOSOON. 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 12:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Powtoon

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

Through a web search, it doesn't appear that this is a notable company. I've found some web articles [18][19][20], but with a quick read, I'm concerned about significant coverage (i.e., commentary, analysis, etc.) of the company's services within those sources, per WP:CORPDEPTH. Best, Bridget (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete The article reads like an advertisement or product description rather than an article, which is not acceptable in Wikipedia's standards. In addition, there are just three references; one by the company's own page, an article in a technologic publication and a product review. These are not enough to consider the company to be notable. Just to be sure, I searched for more inependent sources on the company to possibly add later on, and found almost nothing beyond brief mentions. NeoGaze (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think there's SIGCOV of the company, but I found several sources about the product: [21], [22], [23], [24]. I'm not entirely sure how to resolve that. Anerdw (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rancho San Pedro Locos

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the nom, fails wp:sigcov and wp:gng. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10 (Ginger album)

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, User:doomsdayer520, article creators are free to participate in AFDs for articles they create. They probably know more about the subject and its notability than any other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hussein Al-Ankoshei

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

No evidence of WP:SUSTAINED notability using WP:RS Amigao (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Iraq. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dov Shafrir

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

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

Keep Loads of sources, in the scholarshp and news: passes WP:ANYBIO. Senior character in the newly-independent Isreal government: passes WP:NPOL. Cheers, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Easternsahara (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps there's an appropriate redirect or merge target. All the sources added today are not coverage about Shafrir, and there were no sources presented that demonstrate WP:SIGCOV of Shafrir himself to satisfy WP:NBIO. From looking through the sources, these are simply singular, mostly single-line mentions of Shafrir's appointment in 200+ page books. We've deleted based on far more coverage. Obvious WP:GNG fail. Longhornsg (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added two links that provide basic biographical details; per WP:BASIC multiple sources can be combined in lieu of significant coverage. His involvement in the redistribution of Palestinian property is of historical interest and his work is well documented (e.g, in this encyclopedia entry which quotes his report at length. The fact that other deletions proceeded under supposedly analogous circumstances is a non sequitur. Oblivy (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"...trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability" So then it must just then be proven that these are not routine coverage or passing mentions in order for WP:BASIC to qualify. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are discussing him in the context of his project, and coverage of that project was more than trivial. You don't get to stop with "He was appointed to head the X project" if the rest of the paragraph is about X project.
If there was consensus for merge Iand redirect to Israeli land and property laws#Absentees' Property Laws I'd be prepared to support it. I still think this can live happily as a well-documented stub. Oblivy (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that over a Keep. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people). There seems to be no SIGCOV of him. He seems solely known for being the first Israeli Custodian, a role which isn't itself notable enough for an article. Some of his work definitely seems notable for mentions in an article, but presumably they're already included here: Israeli land and property laws -- Bob drobbs (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to presume; you can look at the linked article and see how it's handled. That's why I suggested a merge and redirect. Oblivy (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Israeli land and property laws#Absentees' Property Laws. Per nom, there isn't enough WP:SIGCOV in WP:RELIABLESOURCES to justify a standalone article on the subject.--DesiMoore (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus supports that, then I would support the merge to Israeli land and property laws#Absentees' Property Laws as you suggest. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (nominator here), updating my !vote to reflect the positive and most recent suggestions that instead of a full delete that the subject article title be redirect instead to Israeli_land_and_property_laws#Absentees'_Property_Laws. This is a good suggestion and the best AtD. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the editor who suggested merge and redirect as an ATD:

First, biographical coverage of the article subject appears limited, but his work is covered in great detail in a few sources, for example here at 69 et seq. Every time the word "custodian" is mentioned in relation to that period it means this one person.
Second, the more important topic is the initial redistribution of seized property, which is addressed at the target article but in an extremely clinical manner despite the lengthy quotes. The focus of that article is not history, but a series of statutes and institutions. I'm not sure how the merge would sit within that article but perhaps a short paragraph about the initial seizure and redistribution would be appropriate.

I still think this article is fine as a stub. It could be appropriately rescoped into an article about the custodian's office -- I'm not knowledgeable enough or in a position to devote time to doing it, but IMHO that would be the best thing for the encyclopedia. Oblivy (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone search Hebrew-language sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scholar has two links which are paywalled, one of which is on transfer of lands. He has an autobiography that's available in some Worldcat libraries. I'm pretty limited here. Oblivy (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Allsebrook

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

Fails as per WP:NSPORTS. While he has appeared more than 80 times for a club at a professional level, and it is backed by two notable sources, there is simply nothing else that would suggest that this player is 'relevant' enough for an article. KrystalInfernus (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And where did you look for sources for this 1910s footballer? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The nominator makes the keep case themselves. This person "played for a club at a professional level" and the article is "backed by two notable sources". What more do you want, especially as this player pre-dates the internet age by many decades? Anxioustoavoid (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I consider this a bad faith nomination, the player won the Second division with Notts County in the 1913–14 Football League, I bet there are old newspaper archives that can help. WP:OFFLINESOURCES. Probably mentioned in a few Notts history books. I also suspect he may have served in WW1, there is probably more to find. Govvy (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Beynon-Davies

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

This article is entirely sourced to affiliated sources. I cannot find any biographical sources about the subject. Searches turn up directories and book sales pages, and nothing of obvious value per WP:GNG. And the SPA who wrote the article is, or is connected to, the subject, per File:Paul_Beynon-Davies.jpg. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
? What does the nominator think of the subject's citation record? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilia Ibeabuchi

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

Not quite at the threshold of meeting WP:GNG. run of the mill nurse that's got some coverage and participated in politics. Generally hyper-local in nature Graywalls (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, Nigeria, and Massachusetts. Graywalls (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This person certainly does good work, but i can only find this [25], this [26]. We could maybe merge to the hospital or the clinic where they work, but I don't see enough to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tham Nimal-Raj

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

I could find no reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject, thus does not meet WP:BIO. His academic career does not meet any of the criteria of WP:NPROF and neither of his books appears to have had sufficient impact such that WP:NAUTHOR might be achieved. Article has been repeatedly published in mainspace from draftspace in spite of the absence of solid sources and references, and the tone is very promotional. I had considered WP:G11 but the article is probably slightly below the bar for speedy deletion. SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sri Lanka, and United Kingdom. SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Assuming " He is currently the Chancellor, Provost, and Professor of Family Medicine and Anatomy at New Vision University Medical School in Tbilisi, Georgia." to be verifiable I see him as passing WP:NPROF. However, I am having great difficulty in finding verification for this. If verification cannot be found then my opinion is that the correct answer is to delete. Please alert me by ping here or on my user talk page if this is verified/verifable, and I will offer a formal !vote either way 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would have expected to find Nirmal-Raj at https://newvision.ge/en/schools/medicine under "staff" where I have searched with no luck. I will set my default to Delete per nom, and will alter it if I am proven to be incorrect and told about it 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My error. "Thamotherampillai Nimala-Raj" is there - a different spelling. However, my researches about the organisation suggest to me that this remains a failure of WP:NPROF and my mind is not changed. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just for future AfD participants, [27] is the page in question, which states that the subject is Provost of New Vision University - UK Campus (NVU-UK), not, as claimed in the article He is currently the Chancellor, Provost, and Professor of Family Medicine and Anatomy at New Vision University Medical School in Tbilisi, Georgia. I could have included that in my nomination, so sorry Timtrent for making you re-do what I'd already discovered. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SunloungerFrog Thank you. That I did it meant I researched the organisation. I do not feel it is an inherently notable organisation, thus the provost-ship (etc) seems to me not to count towards any personal notability, The flannel piece om the link appears to be self written self promotion. It reinforces my opinion to delete. Thank you for your work on this. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Came here to !vote delete because this doesn't feel like an independently notable medical school upon which to base an WP:NPROF argument on, ~~had not even seen Timtrent's !vote above that that fact was not yet verified, so that feel's like a double whammy.~~ (edit conflict) Had not seen Timtrent's later reply; if verified, I still stand by this assessment that this fails NPROF. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ nf utvol (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of Elon University

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

Short list of the presidents of Elon University. WP:BEFORE doesn't appear to show any independent sources discussing the topic of Elon presidents as a whole, and a list of notable faculty already exists. Propose merge and redirect to List of faculty and alumni of Elon University, creating a new section "Presidents." nf utvol (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nom. nf utvol (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Schools, and West Virginia. nf utvol (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the proposed merge and redirect seems non-controversial to me and I would say go ahead and do so. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there are several problems with this nomination, although none of them should stand in the way of merging with either a list of faculty or with another article about Elon University.

AfD isn't the right forum for initiating a merge discussion. Proposed mergers should be discussed on the talk pages of the articles in question. Merger is not deletion.
Whether there are sources discussing a list of things is not relevant to whether such a list can or should exist on Wikipedia; it is enough that at least some of the subjects of the list are independently notable (of which at least one appears to be here), and that they form a logical intersection that would be useful to readers (i.e. a natural list, not a random intersection, such as left-handed North Carolina chess champions who like Limburger cheese). If none of them were individually notable, then we might want a source discussing them as a list.
How does this article involve WikiProject:West Virginia? The university isn't in West Virginia and doesn't appear to have any special connection to the state, which isn't mentioned in either this or the main article, or in any of the articles about its presidents.

All of that said, the list is fairly short, only three of the linked articles have been written (one of which is basically a stub, while another reads more like a résumé, but these can be fixed), and can easily be merged with a more appropriate article, without losing any of the contents. P Aculeius (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nom, my bad...you're totally correct about it not being appropriate for AfD. Regarding the last part, I must've accidentally clicked on it in TW. Whoops. nf utvol (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

ZX Touch

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

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

Delete: As noted, two of the refs link to the company website, and the other two are videos on YouTube which appear to be reviews of the topic. When searching the subject, most of the links that appear are on shopping sites such as eBay and Amazon, and there doesn’t appear to be any real significant coverage of the subject on websites not affiliated with the subject. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 05:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Products, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of ZX Spectrum clones. One good reference in Retro Gamer (paywalled [28] or [29]), and one where I'm unsure of reliability: [30], and I think we have enough for a mention. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per A412. Retro Gamer reference is sufficient for inclusion. Pavlor (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per A 412. Both Time Extension and Retro Gamer are reliable per WP:VG/RS. --Mika1h (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Central Arizona Valley Institute of Technology

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

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

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

Comment - I am thinking of withdrawing this AFD for a merge proposal instead. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Swierot

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

After defusing a couple WP:REFBOMBs, the notability of this young footballer didn't seem as clear. After a search, the most I found from third-party sources was this routine contract extension announcement and trivial mentions like 1. There is also a bit here, although it consists of quotes from the club's training center director. JTtheOG (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and France. JTtheOG (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep :
- WP:FOOTYN :
- Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure.
- Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition.
- Swierot played for Lyon, winning the French Division 1 Championship in 2024, and with Reims. + UEFA Women's Under-17 Championship (which she won), UEFA Women's Under-19 Championship.
https://www.fff.fr/equipe-nationale/joueur/10490-swierot-julie/fiche.html

Third party sources

https://www.lunion.fr/id697342/article/2025-03-13/le-stade-de-reims-pourra-cette-fois-faire-jouer-julie-swierot-face-lolympique

https://www.leprogres.fr/sport/2024/08/02/ol-feminin-julie-swierot-prolonge-d-une-saison-et-est-pretee-a-reims

https://www.leprogres.fr/sport/2023/08/01/le-futur-de-l-ol-feminin-c-est-elles

https://africafootunited.com/transfert-f-lequipe-feminine-du-stade-de-reims-signe-marion-haelewyn-et-trois-autres-joueuses/

https://www.lyonfoot.com/article/6634/ol-feminin-julie-swierot-prolonge-d-un-an-et-file-en-pret-a-reims

https://www.olympique-et-lyonnais.com/mercato-swierot-prolongee-par-lol-feminin-puis-pretee-a-reims,336445.html

https://www.olympique-et-lyonnais.com/ol-academie-dix-jeunes-joueuses-ont-obtenu-leur-baccalaureat,334629.html

And I wonder how people feel about a user specifically targeting another user after a disagreement. Harassment, stalking. ProudWatermelon (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are all brief mentions or transfer reports, none of these are really helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Might meet notability requirements with the pro starts, but we need sourcing. Simply mentioning the person in a brief article less than a paragraph long isn't enough. I don't see sourcing we can use what's in the article is primary. The sources in the comment above are brief mentions or articles less than a paragraph long. It's likely TOOSOON for this young person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summoning Govvy and BeanieFan11. Barr Theo (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barr Theo. I see you are new to AfDs, and I'm sure this ping was done in good faith. Please note that you need to be very careful about pinging editors to a discussion. If it appears this is done to influence one side or another, it would be considered vote stacking. The active AfD participants will usually find their way to discussions they are interested in. If you need specific expertise, it is a good idea to explain why you are summoning that editor. E.g. because they speak a language used in the sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turf Classic Stakes finishers and starters

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

Undetailed list article that could easily be merged without much trouble into the main Turf Classic Stakes article or be deleted entirely. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Horse racing, United States of America, and Kentucky. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I googled Turf Classic Stakes Wise Dan Optimizer Middie to see if there was an coverage of the individual races outside of the papers that publish the stakes, and couldn't find anything. That tells me the second and third place finishers aren't encyclopedic. The finishers can already be found at Turf Classic Stakes#Winners. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above summary of why this isn't needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basement Reels

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

I'm failing to see how this meets WP:NYOUTUBE, WP:GNG or WP:ENT. My WP:BEFORE turned up nothing outside of the sources in the article. Those sources consist of a student newspaper article that's mostly an interview (see also WP:RSSM); a source with a couple of paragraphs that again has a significant amount of Interview intertwined with three other Tamil content cretors; and a television interview by CBC's "Our Toronto". I'm just not seeing the amount WP:SIGCOV secondary reliable source we would expect from an notable YouTube channel. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 19:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Arts, Internet, Tamil Nadu, and Canada. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 19:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Young New Wave

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. No charting or reviews exist. मल्ल (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. मल्ल (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there's a review from HotNewHipHop. I added another source. I can't find charting info, but a review and a couple of other reliable sources should be worth a weak keep. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Shaikh (actor)

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

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

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

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

Keep passes WP:NACTOR. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 20:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks WP:SIGCOV, most of the reference cited were from unreliable sources per WP:ICTFSOURCES. Needs more depth and coverage Imsaneikigai (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Imsaneikigai "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." [31], [32],[33], [34],[35] as per some of these mentioned sources in the article, you can clearly check that these are clearly not "Trivial mentions" but topic of the source material, as these are not just mentioning the subject but talking about it. So even after your cleanup of unreliable sources, there is clear Significant Coverage of the subject as per the guidelines. Knowledgedghoul (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can see enough references from significant coverage, The subject has roles in multiple featured films and Television series meets WP:ACTOR. B-Factor (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gojo (character)

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

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

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

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

It could be a redirect to the disambiguation page Gojō, where the character wasn't listed until just now. -- Recon rabbit 16:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect to where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Raj Comics per above. Editors can continue the discussion outside AFD about whether there's a better target, such as a disambiguation page. The article doesn't have enough sources to met most of our policies. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Languages (YouTube)

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

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

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

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

Appreciate you fixing the broken link. That said, the source is just a directory/listicle that briefly mentions Easy German among other channels. It is only a few lines with no real depth and would not count as significant coverage by Wikipedia standards for establishing the subject's notability.

And yes, the uni-muenster article does not seem to be independent. It is full of quotes from the subject and there's even a disclaimer at the top stating This text is taken from the alumni|sponsor magazine of the university newspaper 'wissen|leben,' summer semester 2022 issue. That magazine features stories submitted by their own alumni. Anyone who attended the university can send in their story to be featured.

Wikipedia expects significant coverage to be both substantial and independent of the subject, which isn't the case here. Junbeesh (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: A thesis [36] and some discussion in a journal [37], with the other sources in the article we should be able to build a basic/stub article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Catalan-language paper here [38]. Oaktree b (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These alone do not establish notability, though they may contribute toward it. The primary requirement is that the subject must have received sufficient, significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and independent of the subject. Junbeesh (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think the journal article and Catalan paper are two significant independent reliable sources, as is The Local [39]. With the other borderline sources I think there's just about enough to push this into notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi Quest

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some sources have been found which allow to write a more rounded article through normal editing. Daranios (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pawan Luthra

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

No indication of significance. Not a single secondary source amongst the references in a BLP. Refs prove he exists, but fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 16:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, Delhi, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources do not appear to prove WP:SIGCOV for WP:BASIC. Youtube and passing mentions. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 21:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Alan Levy

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 16:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Internet, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No RS that discuss this person are used for sourcing. Source 15 is a RS but doesn't mention this person. I don't see any either, some primary sourcing only. The was at AfD over a decade ago, and still no RS have turned up. I don't think this person is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tai Po Methodist School

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

No refs on the page. Nothing to suggest this junior school meets the criteria for inclusion JMWt (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Hong Kong. JMWt (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything besides a directory entry provided by the school. It exists, but isn't inherently notable. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suman Shringi

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Suman Shringi does not meet WP:NPOL. Unable to locate significant coverage that demonstrate the notability of the subject. B-Factor (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stub page. I also concur with the nom that there is no sigcov of the subject thus the article should be deleted Scooby453w (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Vijay Kumar Jain

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

All these cited sources are sponsored and promotional; even the Bangkok Post article identifies itself as “Sponsored content.” This fails GNG. GrabUp - Talk 16:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nonso Okpala

AfDs for this article:

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Of the sources both present in the article and that I am able to find, the ones in reliable sources are not independent or are interviews, some coverage but nothing significant (in regard to the biographies), or are republications of content produced by the subject (in the case of the company). Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Companies, and Nigeria. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All. Self serving WP:ADMASQ, No notability found. Fail variously WP:BIO and WP:NCORP. strongly likely to be UPE. WP:GNG failure 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blogs, mentions, or otherwise unreliable sources do not add up to notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This How I'm Coming 2

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Reconstruction Front

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The article could, and should be expanded much more than it is now, but seeing that it has won seats in the Haitian chamber of deputies, I would argue it meets notability. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Freeman (Mormon)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Discrimination, and Latter Day Saints. Jbt89 (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Colorado, Hawaii, North Carolina, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep ~~as well as being an elder he served for a time as a LDS bishop and we usually keep articles about bishops of major religions.~~ The article includes references/ notes to reliable newspaper coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that LDS bishops are not the same level of hierarchy in most other christian denominations like catholicism. They are more analogous to priests. I am neutral about this page otherwise.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist in hopes of generating some further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is as notable as any "member of a discriminated against group that was the first to do something", which we have a lot of on Wikipedia. Also there is a lot of additional, verified, information other than him becoming the first black person to receive the Melchizedek priesthood. Masktapeisawesome (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Other than being the first one from a significant group, there is no significant notability. Equivalence is as pointed out by Anonrfjwhuikdzz/mentioned again by Bearian. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Rift (Richards novel)

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

Fails WP:NBOOK, most of the article is just plot and cites no reliable sources (I could not find any coverage by RS either). GoldRomean (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Douglas E. Richards#The Rift Trilogy - I can't find any independent reviews, and the book is self-published. However, there are 2,500 reviews on Amazon, so it's not an obvious delete. This is supposedly a trilogy, according to the Richards article, so this may be WP:TOOSOON. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ajdin Mujagić

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

This Bosnian men's footballer had a short professional career before moving to the second tier of Croatian football. The closest source that is not a transfer announcement is SportSport, but it only mentions his name in title. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Per all above. Anwegmann (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reference count has more than doubled since the last "delete" !vote. Thoughts on the expansion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article has enough content and sources to be notable. Per WP:SPORTSPERSON the article has secondary sources that are independent to the subject to be presumed notable. They have also won the Bosonian Cup as well. Extensive research could have been done. Editz2341231 (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article has changed since the nomination, it would be useful if we could analyze the new sources. RossEvans19 (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, @Anwegmann:, per WP:HEY. Also I found [40], [41], [42], among many more Bosnian and Croatian sources. Has sources ongoing career and played 13 pro games for one of most historically successful Bosnian teams. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of brief interviews does not indicate notability. We need better analysis of sources. Giant Snowman 13:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anwegmann:, First source ("With Željezničar, he won the 2017/2018 BiH Cup, and for the 2022/2023 season he was chosen as the top scorer of the First League of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina with as many as 20 goals scored"), second source ("Ajdin Mujagić is the new gem of the youth team of FK železničar, who shone in full glory. In his debut for the first team of the Blues on Sunday, he scored his debut and thus definitely opened a new chapter in his career in an excellent way... He joined the first team at the invitation of coach Edis Mulalić, who knows him well from the junior team"), third source ("Ajdin Mujagić is celebrating in Croatia: He came off the bench and brought the autumn title... He was especially remembered in the FBiH First League, where he scored 44 goals and added 19 assists in 103 appearances. The episode in Zvijezda from Gradačac is especially memorable because in 31 games he scored as many as 22 goals and distributed 12 assists to his teammates"), among many more Bodnian and Coatian sources. Has sources ongoing career and played 13 pro games for one of most historically successful Bosnian teams who he won the Cup with. Also WP:HEY. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't copy/paste sentences between posts/arguments. (In this case: the " Has sources ongoing career and played 13...") This is one of the things you have been warned not to do. Geschichte (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite the added sources, they all appear to be WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, routine transfer coverage or other non-WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more analysis of the nature of the sourcing would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Kubr

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

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

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

Keep – Per Das osmnezz sources. I couldn't see the paywalled ones, but the rest seem satisfactory to me. Svartner (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The sources presented are primary sources, and he only played one match of professional level in Norway. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plus twenty in the Czech second tier... FromCzech (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources below which (AGF) seemingly show notability. Giant Snowman 13:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @Svartner:, @GiantSnowman:, @Clariniie: bruh I found [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], among many more Czech and Norwegiajn sources in a few mins. Young player with ongoing career and many sources and 20+ fully pro games. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Bruh?" You know Q+A interviews are not acceptable for passing GNG yet you insist on providing them as sources at AFD. In your "few mins" search you've managed to link the same an.no article twice. (BTW what's behind the paywall? Can you tell us what is contains?) Dougal18 (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't get past the paywall either, but the headline reads: "Tough months for Lucas (20). I don't blame anyone." The second heading reads "Lucas Kubr had to have ankle surgery last fall. Now he's getting better and better every day." So it looks like a mix of news reporting of the slow return to form of a player with an injury, and interview with him ("I don't blame anyone" clearly being his words). The source is primary on one count or the other. I don't see how that can be counted towards notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy:, @Clariniie:, Idk how secondary coverage combined with interview would not count... using that black and white logic all newspaper/magazine interviews mixed with secondary coverage with anybody (like [49] or [50]) would not be counted towards anything... First source: ("Lucas Kubr is now showing it in Brno, where he found his first Czech contract at the age of 20 with second-league Zbrojovka. It came after a two-year stint in Norwegian Bodö/Glimt, for which he is grateful, but he did not want to be dragged off the substitutes' bench any longer... Both as a person and as a football player, Lucas Kubr grew up in the family of Prague native Martin Kubr in Belgium near Genk, in a region crazy about cycling... He didn't enjoy pedaling. But he was fascinated by football"), Second source: ("He is finally enjoying football again, and to a significant extent. Lucas Kubr desperately needed a lot of time on the pitch. After a season in which he played only a minimum of matches for the Norwegian team Bodo/Glimt, the left-back only welcomed the summer offer from Zbrojovka. He plays regularly for the Brno club, often in the starting lineup, and on Friday he even enjoyed his first goal in South Moravia against Slavia B. It was enough for a 1:1 draw. The 20-year-old player has mixed memories of his time at the elite Norwegian club. He gained valuable experience from an interesting destination, and at the beginning of last season it looked like he could make a significant impact. He started Bodo/Glimt's journey in the preliminary rounds of the European Conference League on the bench, from which he also watched the successful double match against Bohemians Prague, but that almost ended Kubra's anabasis in the first team. He only played in two cup matches, only collecting starts for the Norwegian club's reserve team. He welcomed his summer return to the Czech Republic, even though he is not currently experiencing many happy moments with Zbrojovka. The Brno team is still stuck in the relegation positions in the second league"), Third source just from the section without paywall: ("Grandma is from Palermo. Mom is Belgian, dad is from Prague, aunt is German. He was born near Genk, Belgium, and plays above the Arctic Circle in Norway... he rushed to Prague to visit his grandfather, who lives alone in a large house above Smíchov"), Fourth source: ("He lives an extraordinary life. With a Czech father, an Italian mother, a birthplace in Belgium, a current position in Norway beyond the Arctic Circle and a secret desire to become the new David Jurásek. Lucas Kubr (19), do you know him? The fast left-back from Bodo/Glimt was only recently discovered for domestic football by coach Radek Bejbl. The native of the Flemish city of Tongeren is an option for Jurásek's position in the newly formed U21 national team for Jan Suchopárek... Attention, a few days ago the youngster was close to being loaned out to the Czech league, according to iSport information specifically in České Budějovice. But the whole thing is said to have fallen through. It is still possible that the nice guy Lucas Kubr will arrive in the Czech Republic at the beginning of August with the Norwegian team for the rematch of the second preliminary round of the Conference League at Letná against Bohemians. Even if as a substitute"), and the fifth and sixth sources definitely have secondary coverage behind paywall. On top of this I can even find more sources and he will definiftely get more as his nascent pro and international career progresses. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The added sources are just match reporting and other primary reporting. For GNG we need multiple independent reliable secondary sources. We don't have those. I am a little troubled by a !vote that says "AGF seemingly show notability". At AfD we need to be discussing and reading the sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we need multiple secondary SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Even just one provided is still too weak to establish notability. By the way, did you mean passing mention in match reports? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. In answer to your question, it is passing anyway, but no - the problem is that even if you have a match report that has something that scrapes through SIGCOV by describing a good game that the player had, the account of the match is a primary source. Someone has watched the match and written down what they saw. The very definition of a primary source. Many people seem to assume that such accounts show notability (and such people have perhaps never !voted to delete an article in any AfD ever), but notability is shown when someone takes such accounts and writes a source that synthesises them to tell us something biographical of the player. For instance, if someone takes multiple accounts and describes how the player pioneered a new attack, or somesuch, then the synthesis and biographical account will be a secondary source demonstrating that the player is not just a player but a notable one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See what I wrote above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This report includes detailed analysis of his background and movement between Norway and the Czech Republic. This short article gives details on his personal background. This article is an extended profile. Easily satisfies GNG/BIO. Also there is simply no community consensus that match reports can per se be discounted as "primary"; it is simply not that binary. A match report can contain all sorts of information referencing past match histories, player interactions, differences between matches in a current season, coach/player styles, coach/player development etc. A match report which contains detailed analysis of a particular player's contribution could well count *towards* notability. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Match reports certainly are, prima facie the epitome of primary sources. They are an eyewitness report of a match. Your point, I think, is that even primary sources may contain information that may be considered secondary, depending on the question asked. An example from an unrelated area: a PhD thesis is a primary source, but a thesis studying a school might contain historical background of the school culled from other sources, and that background might be secondary. That does not make the thesis a secondary source. But when I said the sources were match reporting and other primary reporting, I did not assert a "binary" at all. I specifically said that what I read was primary reporting. So, let's look at these.
- Your first example [51] is certainly match reporting from paragraph 4 onwards. Paragraph 1 is the writers introduction, includes a primary quote and a writers opinion "he enjoys football again". No secondary information. Paragraph 2 likewise. although "he gained valuable experience by..." is not about this match, it is the primary opinion of the writer, it is not a collation or analysis of any sources. Paragraph 3 likewise and has quotations from the subject, which are neither primary nor independent.
- Your second [52] is, as you say, very short. It also is evidently written from an interview response. I don't see how that can tell us anything about notability.
- I'll have to come back to source 3 and the four that Das osmnezz wants to discuss above as I am out of time. Potentially an extended profile is relevant, and is not just match reporting, but I'll note cautions that (1) it contains interview material - which does not preclude it being good, but must be considered appropriately per WP:IV (2) independence needs to be considered. What is the occasion of the document? (3) we need multiple sources.
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: seems like discussion is still ongoing here, Sirfurboy has at least indicated that they intend to return
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "a PhD thesis is a primary source" - that statement does not reflect community consensus; WP:SCHOLARSHIP: as they are often, in part, primary sources. (my emphasis) In other words, not always and if so, partially. Thus, case by case analysis is required, which is my point above about match reports. Unfortunately, this is again a demonstration of turning elements of our guidelines into binary black and white frameworks. It denies that our guidelines are designed to have flexibility and not be absolute. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How you can read what I said and think I am asserting a "binary black and white" framework, when I very specifically made the point to say the opposite, is beyond me. I literally made the point that the research is a primary source for the research/thesis being defended, but contains secondary information if the question asked of the source is different. But if you think that an eye witness match report is not prima facie a primary source, then you have some more reading to do. If someone watches a match and writes about the match, then what they are writing is an eye witness account. Now to the sources I said I'd come back to, I'll look at Das osmnezz's 4 first, and then at the third of yours that I ran out of time for.
- First source: [53] This whole source is an interview. See WP:IV a person does not pass GNG if interviews are the only kind of sourcing they have. In particular, all statements an interviewee makes about themself in an interview are primary, and cannot be used towards GNG. This includes the interviewer's summary of their response as you have quoted here. N
- Second source: [54] This is a match report, a primary source. You argue that, nevertheless, there is secondary information, such as "He is finally enjoying football again." While it is true that this is not exactly a description of his performance on the field, what it is is an opinion of the person watching. That person is presenting the match report, and their opinion that he is enjoying football again, is the eyewitnesses opinion. This is still primary. It is the primary opinion of the reporter. It is not a synthesis or analysis of primary sources. It is their opinion based on what they saw. As a matter of historiography, this is all a primary source. It tells us about his performance in the match, it does not tell us about the notability of the subject. N
- Third Source: [55] - Again an interview. Now you pick up the statement "Grandma is from Palermo..." etc. These are statements of fact that can be safely used in an article, but it is clear that this was not researched by the interviewer from some primary source. The interviewer has asked the interviewee a question, and he said, in the course of his answer, that his grandma came from Palermo etc. The statement is reported as a fact, but the information has come directly from the subject during the interview. It is primary. It is probably reliable enough, but it tells us nothing about notability, as per WP:IV and P&G N
- Fourth Source: [56] - This is another interview and also cannot be used to establish notability. N
- "This article" source (the one I said I'd come back to): [57] This one has a write up about an upcoming match. The first thing to note is that the quotations from Kubr are primary regarding Kubr. That is, if he talks about himself, the information is primary. Halfway down the article, however, we get a little biographical detail - his Belgian/Czech story. This information clearly comes from him, but the occasion is what is important. Why are we getting his profile? The answer is simply that he is a new signing, about to get a start. It is a news story, but I do not believe this demonstrates notability. News reporting is primary, and although the background goes beyond the main news interest, the information presented has clearly been obtained from the subject themself in the course of an interview for the news story. I will, however, mark it as a ? because others might wish to make a case for it. That case would need to take the occasioning of the article seriously. If one were inclined to accept it, however, this would still be the only source we have. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources, so we are still short of GNG here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight 512

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. Plus, this incident is already covered in Lists of accidents and incidents involving the Tupolev Tu-134, so there is no need to have a separate article with almost 0 new information. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Jordan, and Russia. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found these sources on the matter: [58], [59], [60], [61]. The sources summarize the crash and circumstances (don't talk about investigation/public response since the crash was relatively minor), and seem to be enough to source a plane crash article, but I'll wait before making a decision. LastJabberwocky (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's a bad article at the moment, but I definitely think that it's expandable based on sources. SportingFlyer T·C 18:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until such time that there's WP:SUSTAINED coverage beyond real-time news. Wikipedia is not a collection of WP:News articles. Even if it were notable, there's no need for an event to have an article if it can be adequately covered in a list of similar events. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Oil

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

Despite the company's regional presence, it lacks coverage from multiple reliable sources Hopkinkse (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hopkinkse (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canopy (app)

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

The app`s article lacks sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources to establish the app's notabili Hopkinkse (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Hopkinkse (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My doubts about the nominator aside, this is not a notable product, at least not according those sources, which basically has one decent article about the product/company, and three instances of the product being mentioned. This should have been worked on in draft space. Delete. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Israel. – The Grid (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI was in the middle of writing this article. I was doing research which I was planning to add. Then, without warning, somebody (who has only a few edits to their credit and obviously no understanding of how much work is involved) added a deletion notice. I have now added many more sections to the article, as I was intending, in any case, and every statement is backed up. I will continue to improve it, because I think the subject is an important one in this day and age. This particular app is certainly not the only one, and maybe not a perfect solution, but I don't see anyone adding deletion tags to every parental control app on Wikipedia.Simxaraba (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Simxaraba, you run that risk when you put things up in main space rather than write them up as a draft. If I had run into it I would have moved it to draft space, but the lesson here should be simple: don't put something up live if it's not ready. As for the "every other parental app", that's just not an argument at all. Subjects are regarded on their own merit and there is no conspiracy. Here is a long list of arguments to avoid. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah I had the article open and was planning to draftify, but now that it's here it has to be assessed against WP:NORG / WP:PRODUCT. On the other hand, even if the article is "deleted" it can be refunded to draftspace or email to use elsewhere, so the work won't be lost even if that comes to pass. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Drmies. Maybe there is an hypothetical version of this article that would warrant keeping it, but currently it reads more like a promo for the app. Turquoise (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

InCharge Energy

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

The article lacks sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources Hopkinkse (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hopkinkse (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Canada, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per above ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not have valid secondary sourcing WP:SIGCOV to prove notability. The sources are a PR press release and the company websites. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 21:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only found one source meeting WP:ORGCRIT. Could also redirect to ABB as an WP:ATD based on this. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Neiszner

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

Article about a hockey player, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for hockey players. The leagues he played in, the American Hockey League and the ECHL, are specifically listed in WP:NHOCKEY as conferring notability only if the player "Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top-10 career scorer, first-team all-star)" -- but there's no claim being made here that he ever achieved any such thing in either league, and he hasn't been shown to pass WP:GNG either as the article is referenced entirely to content self-published by the teams he has played or worked for rather than any evidence of independent coverage in third-party media sources.
The article has, additionally, spent 18 full months with WP:BLP-violating nonsense like "He is currently an ambulance driver in Alberta. He once smiled, but really didn't like it. Chris also had the pleasure of providing the Rebels staff with water in their mouths." in it until I found and poleaxed it just now, which isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself but does speak to how many responsible editors have actually seen the article.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without much more and better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Whenever I see an AfD on a article on an obscure hockey player such as this, I tend to flicker my gaze to the top of the screen to see if Dolovis -- an editor eventually community-banned from new article creation, and responsible for creating thousands of articles on NN subjects, often in direct defiance of notability guidelines -- was the perp. Bingo! In any event, there's never been any iteration of NHOCKEY under which this player, whose career was multiple rungs below top flight, has been considered presumptively notable. Ravenswing 12:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Red Deer Advocate gave extensive SIGCOV of him, e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 6. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Also this story from the Las Vegas Review-Journal. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are four significant article about him provided above. 1 4 5 6. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage in the home market of the team he played for isn't sufficient in and of itself to give a minor-league hockey player a GNG-based exemption from WP:NHOCKEY. We'd have to see nationalizing coverage, not just the Red Deer Advocate alone. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

coverage isn't sufficient ... [for a] GNG-based exemption from WP:NHOCKEY – ?? NHOCKEY is an inclusionary criterion, not an exlusionary one (and a broken one at that -- if you meet NHOCKEY, you may be notable if you pass GNG; if you do not meet NHOCKEY, you may be notable if you pass GNG). The only thing that matters is whether he meets GNG, and national coverage is not necessary for that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as a distinction between "inclusionary" and "exclusionary" SNGs. GNG does not just count up the number of media hits and keep anybody who's surpassed an arbitrary number, without considering the context in which the media hits exist — as I've said more than once, if GNG just concerned itself with the number of sources a person had, and didn't care about whether the context of what the person was getting covered for was actually of any broad or sustained public interest or not, then we would have to keep an article about my mother's former neighbour who once got a blip of media coverage for finding a pig in her front yard. (Hell, if all GNG cared about was the number of media hits that could be found, and didn't measure for whether the context of what those hits existed for passed any notability criteria or not, then I would even be able to claim that I qualified for an article.) So media coverage doesn't just have to hit some arbitrary number of clippings, and also has to verify passage of one or more notability criteria. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sport-specific sub criteria is just leftover stuff from before WP:NSPORTS2022 that wasn't participation based (all of the participation criteria was removed). None of the individual sport guidelines have been updated with replacement criteria so we're pretty much just left with skeletonized guidelines that offer unhelpful advice like likely to be notable if they've been inducted into the hall of fame. There's isn't even any guidance currently on football, gridiron football, or baseball. In regards to NHOCKEY, the only NHL guidance mentions first-round draft picks, which is obviously too strict given all of the blue links at 2017 NHL entry draft (and there's never been an overabundance of hockey players anyway). ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Right now, it looks like Wayne Gretzky fails NHOCKEY. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He does fail NHOCKEY. I suggest an AfD. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV does not exclude local coverage, and makes no mention of national coverage. Flibirigit (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage isn't excluded from usability, and I never said it was. But local coverage is not necessarily enough to hand a person a GNG-based exemption from normal inclusion criteria all by itself — unelected candidates are not exempted from NPOL just because they can show a handful of local campaign coverage in the local media of the area where they were running without any evidence of broader significance, actors who don't otherwise pass NACTOR's achievement-based criteria are not exempted from them just because they can show a handful of "local aspiring actor gets first bit part in movie" coverage in their hometown media without any evidence of broader significance, high school and junior league athletes are not exempted from the inclusion criteria for their sport just because they can show a handful of hometown local coverage without any evidence of broader significance, local bands are not exempted from having to pass WP:NMUSIC just because they got a few hits of "local band plays local pub" in their local newspaper without any evidence of broader significance, and on and so forth.
If a person is properly established as passing an SNG on an actual inclusion criterion, then we genuinely don't care whether their sourcing is "local" or "national" — but if a person's coverage isn't establishing passage of any specific inclusion criteria, and instead you're trying to argue that they get over GNG purely on the number of media hits that exist in and of itself, then a local vs. national coverage test does come into play, because lots of people can show some evidence of local coverage in contexts that don't pass encyclopedic standards of permanent international significance. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON and WP:WALLOFTEXT may apply here. Flibirigit (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the only coverage were a couple of articles from Neiszer's home town of Craik, Saskatchewan stating that he made it to a WHL team, I'd probably agree that he does not meet GNG. But he has much more extensive coverage from Red Deer, Alberta, which is not his home town (or even his home province) plus significant coverage from Las Vegas, Nevada, which is not even his home country. That's not to mention a lot of insignificant coverage in other newspapers in other ciites. So he actually has not only national coverage, but international coverage. Rlendog (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Red Deer Advocate is a perfectly acceptable source for demonstrating significant coverage for notability, which has no "national coverage" requirement, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal provides an additional source of significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

2025 European power outage

The result was Keep - Boldly WP:SNOW closing this one... no need to drag this process on longer than necessary‎ RachelTensions (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Way WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. It's a big event but there has been no time to get a rounded view of what has happened. JMWt (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Spain. JMWt (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and Portugal. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is front page news across the world. The coverage of the outage appears to easily justify an article. Thriley (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
which Wikipedia:Speedy keep criteria are you asserting should apply in this case? JMWt (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oookay then. JMWt (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NODEADLINES. We can re-assess notability once the dust settles but all of Iberia struggling to literally keep the lights on seems inherently notable as of now. Departure– (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NODEADLINES is an essay that includes at least 7 different opinions. So I don't really see what you are achieving by citing it. JMWt (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we're in the business of talking about relevance, WP:TOOSOON has no real relevant guidance for breaking news and focuses on biography of people, films, and future occurrences. More relevant would be to quote from the counterpoint at WP:NOTTOOSOON: "Some events are clear from the get-go that an article should exist..." - Fuzheado | Talk 15:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's my essay! Departure– (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's an excellent essay, thanks for contributing it! Fuzheado | Talk 15:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – Even after one hour since it started, the notability was very evident due to the enormous disturbance it caused, with several reports from independent and reliable news sources. It is quite a nonsense to claim that something is not notable simply because it is recent. The same applies to earthquakes and similar events. Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, reassess later. It arguably was created WP:TOOSOON, and arguably comes under WP:NOTNEWS as of today but, given that it has been created and the event has the potential for WP:LASTING effects, it is also too soon to AfD it. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:SNOW close - Disappointed in the nominator for not observing that two large industrialized countries were knocked out at the same time for an extended period of time, affecting road traffic, local transit, train systems, and international air travel. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep .Speedy keep does not apply, I agree, but subject is verifiably notable]] due to its discussion in sufficient independent secondary reliable sources. Creation is soon but given the sources, not too WP:SOON. Deletion discussion is too soon. we have thousands of poorly sourced stubs but this aint one of them.--Wuerzele (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as this is a ridiculous nomination to begin with. A whole peninsula has been without power for hours which has obviously affected, among other things, communication lines and the reporting of news itself. More (notable) sources will follow as power is restored. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – per DarwIn Bakhos Let's talk! 15:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Singing candle

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

Looking through the history of this article, it seems to have been an art project by the Belgian Bains::connective (an archive of their website). Their website seems to be the only source that has ever been in the article, and the article's original illustration was sourced to that site too. As you can see from that image (and old versions of the article and site), the art project also seemingly made some concerningly fringe connection with psychology/telepathy. More to the point my WP:BEFORE failed to find any coverage in WP:RSs covering this either as a feedback demonstration or as an art project, and thus I can't see this meeting WP:GNG. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Visual arts, Science, and Belgium. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: You can seem to buy something similar on the various online stores, but I don't find sourcing we can use for notability. Whatever this stub article is, it has no sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, While it wouldn't be a reliable source, I would be interested if you could share such a listing, as everything I can see on online stores are candles (real or fake) that play music, as opposed to the subject of the article which is a feedback experiment which uses a loudspeaker connected to a light sensor to make interesting sounds (and is somehow telepathic?) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, it's just Amazon and Walmart links to singing candles or birthday cards. Nothing useful here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Rubens tube - It's a cool idea but it's not a notable subject or artwork. Fails GNG. Netherzone (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or incorporate into another article. This stub has somehow survived almost 20 years with no references and no notable sources mentioning this specifically.

Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seymour Rossel

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

I am not convinced that this very fluffy and puffy biography full of unverified detail is of a notable person. This is the only thing I found with Google News, and it's one of those vanity publications you find at the hairdresser and in the local hotels. Yes, there are a lot of books, but they appear to be self-published and they don't seem to be cited by any other authors. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, Judaism, Illinois, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Banks

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

Non-notable subject with one RS, couldn't find others during BEFORE. Previous AfD led to article being deleted (in 2008) and I don't believe he passes GNG now. StartGrammarTime (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Psychology, New Jersey, and New York. StartGrammarTime (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete orphan, not really a biography, little in the way of google scholar Czarking0 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Further to this coverage cited in the article, the subject appears to have many hits on the newspaperarchive. See, for example, Box Elder Journal, 1963, and Daily Texan, 1953, and Chester Times, 1954. ResonantDis_tortion 22:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zaur Hasanov

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment This can't be the same person? So maybe not the most notable person under his name. Most of the sources I see are Azerbaijiani or Russian Czarking0 (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:VAGUEWAVE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dafuniks

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark, Music, and Bands and musicians. Uffda608 (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 14:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdi Awad Ali

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Somalia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Haji Abdi Awad is one of the most well-known entrepreneurs in Somaliland. All sources I've cited adequately mention him and cover the article's content. If any reference is problematic please point it out so we can take a look.

One thing to note when it comes to Somali-related articles is nicknames and transliteration, which makes it a bit difficult to find significant coverage if you're not familiar. 𐒈𐒚𐒐𐒆𐒛𐒒 Gebagebo (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I see this non RS source but maybe it is useful to others to find better sources? I may also help if an arabic speaker can check al-manhal WP:TWL. Another passing mention in an RS here Czarking0 (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Baker (entertainer)

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

Weak Keep I see some room for improvement, maybe a few more better sources, so I am employing a weak version of WP:BASIC. Barr Theo (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV in the Seattle Times, Oklahoman, Idaho State Journal, and Daily State News. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Seattle article only briefly mentions him, the Olkahoman isn't much better. Idaho State is the only decent source. Last source talks with people after a state fair, saying how good he was. I'm not sure most of these help. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still a !delete, I don't see any new sources from the last month when this came up at AfD, that would change my mind. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete‎ as WP:A7 by Deb (talk · contribs) Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AlpineTransitWorld (ATW)

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

Roblox game with no coverage whatsoever, no indication of passing WP:NGAME. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 13:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

National Revolutionary Council

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

After the July revolution in Bangladesh, it has become common practice for various individuals to form new political parties. Most of these parties have no national or regional influence, no organizational structure, no notable actions, are not eligible for registration with the Bangladesh Election Commission, and have not participated in any elections or established any offices. Prothom Alo has described such parties as merely nominal. Hundreds of parties have been formed, among which only the National Citizen Party (NCP) is considered notable. The current article is one of the many non-notable parties, as it has not received any substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources, nor is any notable person associated with it. The article is based solely on a press release announcing the party's formation. Wikipedia is not for writing about everything; this is why notability criteria were established. Due to the lack of coverage meeting WP:GNG (General Notability Guideline) and failure to satisfy WP:ORG (Organizational Notability), I propose that this article be deleted.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 13:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Bangladesh. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 13:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Johnson (conspiracy theorist)

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

Coverage is simple fact-check sources and routine coverage. No lasting notability that I can find Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and United States of America. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Conspiracy theories, and Alabama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searching is tough due to his common name, but a targeted search in conjunction with some of his theories reveals that he is only present in his own online manifestos and occasionally mentioned by similarly-inclined kooks. I suggest that he formulate a new theory on how he does not qualify for a Wikipedia article because the lamestream media conspired to never report on his theories because they can't handle the truth. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lolade Dosunmu Adeyemi

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

Likely fails WP Academics and ANY BIO. Old-AgedKid (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Medicine, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACADEMICS or WP:GNG. Insufficient coverages found to establish notability of any sort. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laho (Shallipopi Song

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

The song is not notable; reliable sources are missing. Old-AgedKid (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am Editing it Destinyokhiria (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the song debuted on UK Afrobeats charts, US Afrobeats charts, no9 for global Shazam charts

https://www.officialcharts.com/songs/shallipopi-laho/https://www.shazam.com/song/1798724540/laho https://www.billboard.com/charts/billboard-u-s-afrobeats-songs/

The Song is Charting on 20 plus Apple music charts Currently

@Old-AgedKid Destinyokhiria (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I have found multiple reliable sources for this song. If some of these are included in the article, then the article should be worth a weak keep. UnregisteredBiohazard (what did i do now?) 21:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, non-charting song but that doesn't necessarily mean it needs to go for that reason alone. However, doesn't seem to be very notable nevertheless. If the song appears on an album, I suggest it gets redirected to said album Lil Happy Lil Sad ^:): 05:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if it gets added to an album I will do that Destinyokhiria (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stallion Express

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

Fails NCORP; no notable sources with significant coverage; mainly official website links Old-AgedKid (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to have valid secondary sourcing WP:SIGCOV to prove notability. The sources are the company site and PR news releases which cannot be counted. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 21:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recommending revert to draft until issues with sources are resolved. Rachelbao1103 (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding multiple independent sources (AP 2024, Fintech 2024) that provide significant coverage. Removed multiple official website sources. Will continue improving citations and trimming primary-source material. Rachelbao1103 (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blackwater Community School

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

Subject does not appear to be notable - simply existing or having notable alumni does not mean that a school is notable, unless the school itself has been the subject of reliable, secondary coverage. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Ireland. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Though I've myself triggered more than a few AfD/PROM noms on non-notable schools, I think this one might just about meet WP:NORG/WP:GNG. Barely. While most of the coverage I found in my own WP:BEFORE is from local/regional papers (like that in The Avondhu of school extension project and alumni), there is some coverage in national outlets (like Irish Examiner and Irish Independent - granted largely "match report" style reporting that is not especially WP:INDEPTH on the school itself). If there is consensus that the school doesn't have independent notability, then (per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and as an WP:ATD) I wonder if the title should be a redirect to Lismore,_County_Waterford#Education. Where much of the cited content could be merged. Outright deletion does not, IMO, seem to be an appropriate outcome... Guliolopez (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Buamah

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

Subject does not appear to be notable per either WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Ghana, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's actually a fair bit of coverage here: several profiles from around when his first book came out: The Atlanta Voice, Georgia Public Broadcasting, ModernGhana, and then from 2022 when a TV show that he wrote 'premiered': Africa.com, GhanaWeb, 3news. And some assorted articles in between: i.e. 2021. But it's not all the most high-quality or in-depth. Not sure,, especially because he is still quite young. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The kid has published 4 books but they are all self-published - although I cannot find more information about the books (e.g. who illustrated them ("Linda H" is what is listed, oddly), who laid them out, are they copyrighted? etc). The "Mother Hubbard" publisher has published all of 4 books, all his. motherhubbard.tv is also him and one other kid, with a small number of videos. Also, this WP article says that he won the 2019 GUBA award, but the GUBA site shows that no awards were given in 2019 or 2020. It's just not adding up. Lamona (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Schmitt

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

LUGSTUB-a-like for a non-notable athlete who competed at the Olympic games, once. Nothing in my WP:BEFORE, though the fact that the name of the subject is literally the Dutch version of "John Smith" hardly helps. A search on RKD yields a single-paragraph description - not WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Netherlands. FOARP (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Netherlands at the 1908 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics if there is no significant coverage. By the way, is RKD a reliable source? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RKD is certainly a reliable source for artists, not for gymnasts. An artist with an RKD entry is presumably notable. I assume that the article can be saved based on Schmitt`s notability as an artist. I´ll look into it in the next few days. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Hudnut

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Refs are routine WP:PRIMARY interviews. scope_creep^Talk 11:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google turns up more interviews with and portraits of this person, yet none of them seem to be by independent or reliable sources. – Joe vom Titan (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. Shellwood (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears that the deletion nomination was initiated by the same individual who originally created the article, potentially using a different account. This could constitute sockpuppetry, which is against Wikipedia's policies (see WP:SOCK).

Regarding notability, Alec Hudnut meets the criteria outlined in WP:GNG, as evidenced by significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources:

- Interview on Bloomberg TV via PRLog - Profile in The Enterprise World - Coverage in Supermarket News - Mention in Bloomberg

These sources demonstrate that Alec Hudnut has received significant coverage in independent, reliable publications, satisfying the general notability guideline. Comment added by user:Lilybellfire67592 16:25, 28 April 2025. Sig added by scope_creep^Talk 03:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lilybellfire67592: Remmeber to sign your comments with the four tilde's. On the references you have supplied. Interviews and profile are primary and can't be used to prove notability. Passing mentions are just that. They are not indepth. Lastly I didn't write this article. I don't know where you got that fron. If you cast aspersions like that, you'll get blocked very quickly. scope_creep^Talk 03:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miscalculation (Israel)

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

Non-notable phrase, see WP:NEO. Aydo h8^{[what have I done now?]} 11:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Israel. Aydo h8^{[what have I done now?]} 11:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough characteristic usage to justify an article. Zero^talk 11:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To answer DGW below, I agree it is not neologism. It is a common word that some people have applied to some situations. That doesn't establish independent notability. Lots of people throughout history called lots of things "miscalculations"; why is it special this time? Zero^talk 13:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is special, because this single word determined if the Gaza war occurred or not. See Helen of Troy. _Dgw|Talk 14:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Miscalculation is the key word of the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel. It happened twice, in 1973 and in 2023. It took a year and a half until the truth was revealed. I do not claim that Netanyahu was "right" or Bar was "right", but something very wrong happened in Israel due to this miscalculation. Furthermore, it is not a "neologism" but a word which exactly reflected the situation between Israel and Hamas. Israel wanted Hamas would be satisfied, and Netanyahu wrote it in his affidavit, but Hamas wanted to conquer Israel. Heads of Hamas said clearly that they would not make the attack if they knew the reaction of Israel and of the world (mainly of Trump). The history will judge. _Dgw|Talk 12:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article isn't really about a term, it's more about the application of a common word to a specific situation. But it's clear there's no way to write this article without original research. hinnk (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not original research. It is clearly cited: 1. New York Times, 2. Times of Israel, 3. JPost, 4. Middle east eye, 5. Politico, 6. Los Angeles Times, 7. Times of Israel. _Dgw|Talk 14:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A an article that uses the word "miscalculation" once or twice isn't a suitable secondary source for "a concept…used for avoiding deploying Israeli forces around the Gaza Strip before the Hamas's [sic] October 7 attack". The only way to get from one to the other is through analysis or synthesis that isn't in those sources. hinnk (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Lux (gymnast)

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

LUGSTUB-a-like with no credible assertion of an WP:NSPORTS pass.
He competed at the Olympics, but merely competing is not an indicator of notability per WP:NSPORTS2022.
He competed at the 1903 Antwerp gymnastic tournament and the 1907 Prague tournament (which were not world tournaments, since these weren't held until 1931) as part of the French team. However Lux does not inherit the notability of his team.
The article incorrectly states that Lux received individual "medals" at the 1903 and 1907 tournaments. However, there were no individual awards at the 1903 or 1907 gymnastics tournaments - these weren't awarded until much later. Scores (not medals) were conferred retrospectively after 1922, and a retrospective score given years after the event purely as a statistical artefact cannot be an indicator of notability.
Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE except the usual mirrors and false-positives for people with the same name (e.g., a prominent priest). FOARP (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and France. FOARP (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, its more productive to nominate actually clearly not notable 'Lugstubs' articles than to do it for people who were actually multi-time world champions, for which it is simply difficult to find sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article was not a ”multi-time world champion”. FOARP (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, to be clear, someone who won multiple events at what has been recognized as the world championships at the time. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When somebody is only scored as “winning” an event decades after it happened, the (shaky) assumption that they would have been the subject of significant coverage breaks down entirely. Nobody taking part in this event thought Lux was an individual “world champion”, no-one covered it at the time as such, nor does any detailed history of the event cover him as such. FOARP (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ende Gelände 2020

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

Not special enough to have a separate article A1Cafel (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Environment, and Germany. A1Cafel (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

José Antonio Sossa

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

Insufficient coverage, limited to talking about BLP court cases. I compile part of the conditions of a BLP "Biographies of living persons should be written conservatively and respecting the neutrality of the subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: its function is not to be sensationalist nor to be the main vehicle for the dissemination of judicial statements. Iban14mxl (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL. Seems like he held a national high position (attorney general). But I think the article needs to be clean up significantly but AFD is not clean up Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 01:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NPOL, perhaps speedy, given that the nominator appears to be WP:NOTHERE. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly meets NPOL. JTtheOG (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the assertions by others that this meets NPOL. I would also like to add that there are a sufficient number of RSes to keep this article as well. More could be added and it looks like the article is a bit short, but that is a problem that fleshing out the article would fix, not just deleting the article. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Social Democratic Party

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

The article fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NORG. The organization was established only two months ago and has not yet received any substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Additionally, it is not registered as a political party. The current article relies solely on a press release about its inception.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Bangladesh. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic is well notable, couldn't you just check for sources before nominating it for AfD? In fact, there are even more sources, It's difficult to add, and just because It's not registered doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a article. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Message BangladeshiEditorInSylhet), 04:26 PM, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @BangladeshiEditorInSylhet: The fact that you created the article does not mean you should always vote to keep it. AfD is not a place for voting, but rather for logical and policy-based discussion. Wikipedia is not a directory; it does not include every piece of information. It only includes notable topics, as explained in WP:GNG, WP:NORG, and WP:RS. Please take the time to read these policy pages before creating a large number of articles on non-notable subjects. I've noticed that many of your articles rely primarily on press releases and routine coverage, which are not sufficient for establishing notability.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 16:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Owais Al Qarni:, Alright then, I did not say it contains every bit of information. If my pages rely on such passing mentions only, then why don't you search for sources and try to add it or even just check, Adding sources is not just the creator's job, Sure I'll check those policies AGAIN, sure. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk), 16:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that one created the article does not mean someone should always vote to delete it. AfD is not a place for voting, but rather for logical and policy-based discussion. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk), 17:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Notability is absent. A few days ago, the political party was established. Somajyoti ✉ 10:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further consensus. Please base the arguments on our P&Gs. Additionally, kindly mention which criteria of speedy delete is applicable in this case. (See WP:ACSD)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I want to explain my nomination in more detail. After the July revolution in Bangladesh, it has become common practice for various individuals to form new political parties. Most of these parties have no national or regional influence, no organizational structure, no notable actions, are not eligible for registration with the Bangladesh Election Commission, and have not participated in any elections or established any offices. Prothom Alo has described such parties as merely nominal. Hundreds of parties have been formed, among which only the National Citizen Party (NCP) is considered notable. The current article is about one of the many non-notable parties, as it has not received any substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources, nor is any notable person associated with it. The article is based solely on a press release announcing the party's formation. Wikipedia is not for writing about everything; this is why notability criteria were established. Due to the lack of coverage meeting WP:GNG (General Notability Guideline) and failure to satisfy WP:ORG (Organizational Notability), I proposed that this article be deleted.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 14:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

François Hentges

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

LUGSTUB-a-like with no credible assertion of an WP:NSPORTS pass.
He competed at the Olympics, but merely competing is not an indicator of notability per WP:NSPORTS2022.
He competed at the 1903 Antwerp gymnastic tournament (which was not the world tournament, since these weren't held until 1931) as part of the Luxembourg team which placed third. However Hentges does not inherit the notability of his team.
The article incorrectly states that Hentges received "gold" in an individual event at the 1903 tournament. However, there were no individual awards at the 1903 gymnastics tournament. Scores (not medals) were conferred retrospectively after 1922, and a retrospective score given years after the event purely as a statistical artefact cannot be an indicator of notability.
Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE except the usual passing mentions, though the existence of a prominent 21st century Luxembourgish doctor by the same name complicates this. FOARP (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Luxembourg. FOARP (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage found, e.g. [62] and [63]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both single-sentence mentions. Not WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the one has about a paragraph on him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the one about the award that the source itself sponsors? I think you can see the independence issue there. FOARP (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per sourcing found by BeanieFan11. The articles are quite lengthy with one detailing how Hentges' father was instrumental in the growth and development of a gymnastics club, for which he served as the first president, including building the club's first gym. François then followed in his father's footsteps as president of the club, his later resignation, and nomination to honorary life president. The gym/club later named a competition of some sort after François. I believe the second article details the competition or one iteration of it? I'm not sure where the assertion of non-independence comes from, both of these are found via the Luxemburger Wort, one of the major national Luxembourgian newspapers. GauchoDude (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The independence issue is pretty straightforward: Luxemburger Wort sponsored the competition. FOARP (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Popular Party

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

The article fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NORG. The organization was established only six months ago and has not yet received any substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Additionally, it is not registered as a political party. The current article relies solely on a press release about its inception.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Bangladesh. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic is well notable, couldn't you just check for sources before nominating it for AfD? In fact, there are even more sources, It's difficult to add, and just because It's not registered doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a article. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Message BangladeshiEditorInSylhet), 04:26 PM, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @BangladeshiEditorInSylhet: The fact that you created the article does not mean you should always vote to keep it. AfD is not a place for voting, but rather for logical and policy-based discussion. Wikipedia is not a directory; it does not include every piece of information. It only includes notable topics, as explained in WP:GNG, WP:NORG, and WP:RS. Please take the time to read these policy pages before creating a large number of articles on non-notable subjects. I've noticed that many of your articles rely primarily on press releases and routine coverage, which are not sufficient for establishing notability.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 16:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Owais Al Qarni:, Alright then, I did not say it contains every bit of information. If my pages rely on such passing mentions only, then why don't you search for sources and try to add it or even just check, Adding sources is not just the creator's job, Sure I'll check those policies AGAIN, sure. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk), 17:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that one created the article does not mean someone should always vote to delete it. AfD is not a place for voting, but rather for logical and policy-based discussion. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk), 17:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete: Per nom Somajyoti ✉ 10:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Somajyoti What criterium for speedy deletion do you think this article falls under? "speedy delete" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia; if simply want to emphasize that this should be deleted for not being notable, I encourage you to choose different wording, like "strong delete". Toadspike [Talk] 12:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I added this text using Awesome Aasim's script ---- Awesome Aasim/xfdvote. I had to choose speedy delete because strong delete or similar was missing. Somajyoti ✉ 13:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator

— Cerium4B —Talk? • 21:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete, why speedy delete per nom? The article is well sourced, it doesn't clearly explain the reason. @Cerium4B: @Somajyoti:. Macarius Ibne Mito (talk), 8:48 AM, 27 April 2025
strong delete. Because these days in Bangladesh, many people are opening political parties on their own initiative, and the number has crossed almost 40 in just three months. There is no point in writing articles about these. If something significant happens within any of these parties in the future, then create one again.Somajyoti ✉ 13:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please base your arguments on policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Simple per nom won't count towards consensus and it will be overseen by the closer. Furthermore, strong !votes aren't valid. Make it simple and show the references and citations that are reliable demonstrating the notability of the topic, or use the policies and guidelines to say why the article should be deleted. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason has been provided why the current sourcing is insufficient, and "There are a lot of parties in Bangaldesh" isn't a reason to delete the article. The quantity of parties doesn't matter; whether they have coverage does. Cortador (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Cortador: My first question is: do you know the Bengali language? This is important because the article is based entirely on Bengali-language sources. My second point is that I did not say "There are a lot of parties in Bangladesh," and therefore it is not notable. Please see my original nomination again. I would like to answer your question regarding why the current sourcing is insufficient. A large number of sources alone does not establish notability. As outlined in WP:GNG, to meet the General Notability Guideline, sources must provide presumed significant coverage and must be independent of the subject. WP:PRSOURCE clearly states that "A press release is clearly not an independent source." The current article is primarily based on a press release about the party's formation. The remaining sources simply mention how many parties have been formed. Not a single source cited in the article qualifies as providing significant coverage. Moreover, the most notable publication in Bangladesh, Prothom Alo, described these parties as merely nominal. If you find any source that provides significant coverage, please point it out, and I will withdraw my nomination.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 14:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I want to explain my nomination in more detail. After the July revolution in Bangladesh, it has become common practice for various individuals to form new political parties. Most of these parties have no national or regional influence, no organizational structure, no notable actions, are not eligible for registration with the Bangladesh Election Commission, and have not participated in any elections or established any offices. Prothom Alo has described such parties as merely nominal. Hundreds of parties have been formed, among which only the National Citizen Party (NCP) is considered notable. The current article is about one of the many non-notable parties, as it has not received any substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources, nor is any notable person associated with it. The article is based solely on a press release announcing the party's formation. Wikipedia is not for writing about everything; this is why notability criteria were established. Due to the lack of coverage meeting WP:GNG (General Notability Guideline) and failure to satisfy WP:ORG (Organizational Notability), I proposed that this article be deleted.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 14:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your pov. Can you check my original comment and consider a redirect. This will further help in expansion of an already existing article with 3-4 lines in the Unregistered parties section of List of political parties in Bangladesh for the subject which mentions Bangladesh Popular Party as well. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It is unregistered as Owais Al Qarni said. The influence can be disputed here as some sources suggest that they are now having a big regional network or a party influence in several local areas (I am not sure if we can call it that as it is unregistered/unrecognised by legal system). Thus, I suggest for merging it with List of political parties in Bangladesh as unregistered parties section mentions it at the top. A 3-4 lines paragraph can be added if needed. Upon searching to check notability by reliable sources, some mentions in English sources found are - [64] a source solidifying the nominators comment,[65], a mention of the party, [66], an independent separate mention. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hansen (pornographic actor)

AfDs for this article:

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

It doesn't seem like this one meets WP:GNG. The references are not SIGCOV and most of them don't seem like reliable sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't look like the sources are significant coverage, and while I don't know if this recreated version is significantly different from the previously deleted version, it seems that the previous deletion nomination closed with the same finding and it is unlikely that much changed. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Following sources seem to be coverage significant enough, considering he has been featured in DNA magazine and made headlines in AVN and XBIZ:

Bright, Richard (2006-08-17). "Porn Star Q&A: Brian Hansen". AVN.
"Meet Brian Hansen". Fleshbot. 2006-04-25.
"COLT Launches Buckshot Man Brian Hansen's Fan Site". XBIZ. 2007-02-06
"BRIAN HANSEN The life and times and pajamas of porn's latest superstar". DNA. No. 81. January 2006.
"Brian Hansen's Grabby Snatch". DNA Magazine #90. July 2007. p. 10. Retrieved 2025-04-20 – via Scribd.
Rice, G. Zisk (2010-01-08). "Buckshot Man Brian Hansen Returns in 'Lotus'". AVN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkavirya (talk • contribs) 12:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A cleanup could be done of unreliable sources, instead of deleting the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkavirya (talk • contribs) 13:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are too efficient (AVN) to justify keeping the article Iban14mxl (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source eval?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes SIGCOV Madeline1805 (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown (Victorious song)

AfDs for this article:

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

Zero in-depth coverage. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Victorious 2.0: More Music from the Hit TV Show. This article was previously redirected here in 2016; somebody recreated it this year but the song still doesn't appear to have enough notable coverage to justify its own page. MidnightMayhem 10:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: has multiple, reliable, and independent sources that talk about the song. [67] [68] [69] [70] Shoot for the Stars (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can tell you're passionate about this franchise, but so far I don't think you've demonstrated that this passes GNG. Of those sources, you've linked a blog post (unreliable), a user-generated poll (unreliable), and two news articles that say very little about the song other than that it exists. Where is the sourcing that describes any significant impact the song had or any coverage about its production other than who worked on it? MidnightMayhem 09:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Redirect the article to its album. Coverage of the song itself is not in-depth or does not come from reliable sources.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...Sings Modern Talking: Let's Talk About Love

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

No evidence of this album passing WP:NALBUM, charting, or receiving critical responses. A copy of this mainspace version is at the draftspace, so this looks more like a copy-and-paste move. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Germany. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
draftify for now. Given that the previous release did chart at number 5 in Germany, this one might as well chart, but we don't know. Alternatively these 6 past and future releases could just have one article under the title "Magic". Bedivere (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Młynarczyk

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

No indication of significance but potentially notable. Note tag been on the article for 1+ years. I think it probably fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV but don't hold me to it. scope_creep^Talk 09:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Photography, and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article has an interesting history to be aware of. It was created by a now globally locked account, part of the "Put Radzyn on the map" campaign to promote the town of Radzyn. So I think the sources should be examined very carefully, to analyze which ones are public relations, local promotion, or advertorial content like native advertising that may look like an actual article in a publication but it actually PROMO. Holding off on !voting for now. Netherzone (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - After going through all the sources in the article, and conducting an online BEFORE search, here's what I found: quite a few hits for this photographer, but they are press releases, or event announcements, and photo credits in various publications. A lot is taken directly from Wikipedia. It seems he is a much loved and respected local photographer, who has photographed a broad range of subjects. However most of the sources in the article are primary sources. Some of the citations that look like book reviews are actually synopses written by the photographer himself, and published by the Zwiazek Polskich Artystów Fotografików - Association of Polish Art Photographers, of which he is a member, so not independent. What I did find that contribute to notability are: He designed a stamp for Poland: [71]; review of one of his shows in a newspaper (which I think is local Wyborcza.pl LUBLIN): [72]; and this article, but it is unclear exactly what the publication is but appears it may be an academic journal, info: Młynarczyk, Tomasz. 2011. "Exhibition "Archive - Form And Light and Shadow". Archives – Kancelarie – Collections, No. 2(4)/ (December):195-219. https://doi.org/10.12775/AKZ.2011.007. [73] and another way to access the article: [74]. If kept, the article needs clean up. Netherzone (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Lecoutre

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

LUGSTUB with no credible assertion of an WP:NSPORTS pass.
He competed at the Olympics, but merely competing is not an indicator of notability per WP:NSPORTS2022.
He competed at the 1903 Antwerp gymnastic tournament (which was not the world tournament, since these weren't held until 1931) as part of the French team which placed second. However Lecoutre does not inherit the notability of his team.
The article incorrectly states that Lecoutre received silver in an individual event at the 1903 tournament. However, there were no individual awards at the 1903 gymnastics tournament. Scores (not medals) were conferred retrospectively after 1922, and a retrospective score given years after the event purely as a statistical artefact cannot be an indicator of notability.
Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE except the usual passing mentions in long lists of names. FOARP (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and France. FOARP (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajinder Gupta

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

Completely promotional article, paid contribs and the company he founded doesn't even have it's own article so there's no use having his. If some one searches his company's name this article doesn't pop up. The article has total 1500 views and is a stub from 10 yrs ago _saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 09:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Finance, and Business. _saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 09:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From my observation, the article is not at all promotional and adheres to WP:NPOV. The article also has multiple reliable sources and thus passes WP:BIO. The absence of an article of the company he established is not a reason to delete this page. Same goes with the pageviews and class of the article. Warriorglance(talk to me) 11:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Three sources are generic profiles and don't provide in-depth coverage of the subject, and the final one just links to the most recent issue of Hindustan Times. All sources I could find online are, if anything, about Trident Group more than Gupta. Cortador (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: The Padma Shri award seems notable. There is a limited amount of sourcing that confirms the win. [75] is typical of more recent coverage tha feels promotional. Also come coverage about the cricket association [76]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- From my point of view, the person is presumed notable since he has received a award by Govt. Of India as per WP:ANYBIO, by searching him, I found that their are multiple reliable sources with significant coverage on subject which confirms it's notablity. Since, we are discussing on person not on its organization, so it's not a valid point to delete as his established company doesn't have a article. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: would still benefit from a bit more input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Owl of Minerva (journal)

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

The article has been subject of multiple PRODs and notability flags. Xpander (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Philosophy. Xpander (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The journal has been indexed by IBZ, IPB, MLA and ERIH PLUS etc.[77] [78] And I think it meets C1, C2 and C3, as it is cited by other reliable sources, example: [79] Xpander (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with Xpander above. It is notable - more content can be added. Asteramellus (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a significant philosophy journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes on indexing alone. Definitely need expanding. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ah... I'd thought indexing was a part of WP:NJournals, but it is not. On a second look, I find it fails NJ (which is only an essay, not a firm policy), and that it fails WP:GNG (which is policy). - UtherSRG (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not up to us to decide whether this is an important journal or not. Such a conclusion should be based on RS. Here we have some listings in databases that don't have the selectivity required by NJournals. Neither do some routine citations to articles published in this journal indicate notability. Fails WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do I read correctly that the nominator here is also the first "keep" !voter? Should this be treated as a withdrawn nom? Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: yes, I noticed this, too. In addition, the nom is rather deficient, previous PROD and notability tags is not aa good reason to take something to AfD. However, there is now also my policy-based "delete" !vote, so even if the nom can be treated as withdrawn, this should run its course. I'd be interested to hear what the "keep" !votes here think of my arguments. And some of those "keep" !votes are not very convincing either ("it's notable/significant"...). --Randykitty (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's not clear why the aforementioned indexes (IBZ, IPB, MLA etc.) all fail the selectivity required by WP:NJournals.
Xpander (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because these databases strive for inclusiveness and are relatively easy to get into. Journals in the databases listed in the article (including those that have been added since this AfD started) did not undergo the in-depth evaluation that e.g. Scopus does before including a journal. --Randykitty (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this independently notable from the Hegel Society of America? The same information seems to appear on both pages. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NOCD

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

Fails WP:NCORP, routine coverage in WP:TRADES. Gheus (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Companies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of Kingdoms

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

Fails WP:GNG. This game has got to hold the record for fewest words of review written per dollar earned, as there's been nearly nothing written about Rise of Kingdoms's gameplay. The article's reception section cites three unreliable sources and an Arkansas newspaper.

There's been slightly more written about its marketing and sales, but I don't think it's enough to hold an article about the game together. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reasoning has been provided why the current sources are all unsuitable. Cortador (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to interpret this as a request for a source assessment table.

Source assessment table prepared by User:A412
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lilithgame.roc.gp&hl=en&pli=1	Google Play store entry is written by the developer			✘ No
https://gameir.ie/review/rise-of-kingdoms-doesnt-rise-but-falls-flat/		This is a self-published blog. WP:BLOGS.		✘ No
https://www.clashofgaming.com/en/rise-of-kingdoms-everything-you-need-to-know-about-this-game		I don't know what this is, but it's not a reliable source. No bylines, no editorial policy, no about page.		✘ No
https://www.facebook.com/riseofkingdomsgame/videos/338745250181557/?__xts__[0]=68.ARBqF5dVNJo3rxUQmQryLq2N3UpXHLd_uHueSsu8liNin5tfu60wCvglXSaZ3Unq_qRgwYpDio2APDD5Cmp_BSyjcRXouAcULRwqjQXK9Gd2TKfqypXFNcRu5kvi291scAZvlQYdHMgPEWqAr0BotfMXZIBgUE8VTMY2nf7RcBOG7xHwacqO8jpL0nI4tr-qnpiC65OrWcHQT6gG7ZFSEbJ_3jY9g-AErip5yeuVmdgGvGlKTp2Max0S2zZUh5hG5D0FOiCeroYU-C983H9-BbHdEoqSznNm6tTN_hn46ZwbY-QdnSt5Ly2V9IvfBl0V0g-RGP6Sw-6x6sAV7tJjYItwFFRQQZ6m	Facebook page is owned by the developer.			✘ No
https://gamerant.com/strangest-mobile-game-ads/		Game Rant is an extremely low quality source that outputs a lot of churnalism (WP:VALNET) and consensus has been that it does not contribute to notability.	This is a two paragraph listicle entry. It's very debatable if this is significant coverage.	? Unknown
https://rok.lilith.com/en#:~:text=When%20progressing%20from%20the%20Stone,work%20to%20visit%20Chengdu%20Museum.	The game's website is published by the developer			✘ No
https://www.pocketgamer.com/rise-of-kingdoms/3-5bn-milestone/			This source narrowly focuses on this sales announcement. It's reliable for that fact, but the source does not discuss the game in general.	? Unknown
https://www.touchtapplay.com/rise-of-civilizations-is-an-epic-strategy-mmo-for-mobile/		This is not obviously reliable or listed as such anywhere. Previous WP:VG/RS discussion is unconvincing: [80]		? Unknown
https://technuovo.com/rise-of-kingdoms-review/		This is a group blog, per their about page.		✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20240721111549/https://mmohuts.com/news/rise-kingdoms-review/		Listed unreliable on WP:VG/RS		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

(continued)

Source assessment table prepared by User:A412
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/sep/09/game-on-20190909/		Is the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette a reliable source for video games?		? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Of the sources that come close to meeting reliability standards, there's one acceptable source reporting one specific announcement (Pocket Gamer), one that's probably acceptable if rather unusual (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette), and one source that's deficient in multiple ways (Game Rant). I don't think this adds up to WP:GNG in a way that the article can be primarily based on reliable sources.

~ A412 ^talk! 15:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pikwitonei station

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

This flag stop is not notable, it is already mentioned at the population center of the same name. Moritoriko (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Transportation, and Canada. Moritoriko (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pikwitonei, as that page is just as short as the station, and in the process creating a new section titled "Transportation". As for Pikwitonei Station, not much anything useful found in my WP:BEFORE search, and its existing sources are somewhat reasonably reliable (but half of them are non-independent to the station). EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - see the earlier, extensive discussion about all the stations on this line at:

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Silcox station

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)}<

Kinogama station

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

Flag stop on the Sudbury-White line, possible redirect to the unincorporated place of the same name instead. Nothing notable about this sometimes stop. Moritoriko (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Transportation, and Canada. Moritoriko (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kinogama, Ontario: Barely any WP:SIGCOV found in my WP:BEFORE search. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if there is a better way to deal with articles for redirects than bringing them to AfD I would like to know Moritoriko (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the current AfDs succeed, you can try WP:BOLD redirection and see if anyone contests them. Jumpytoo Talk 01:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kinogama, Ontario, but the navigational templates should be moved over. Looking at the maps there nothing but forest, no structure or population or anything. Jumpytoo Talk 01:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of sand loss on sea turtles

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

Wikipedia is not the place to store your term paper. Might I suggest Google Drive? Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 07:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Organisms. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 07:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge to Sea turtle#Conservation status and threats. There is some information here (at Impact of sand loss on sea turtles#Effect on sea turtle habitats) that could be integrated into the existing article. The bulk is however well covered at Coastal erosion and Beach (which BTW is in a shocking state of referencing...) and/or constitutes essay-style padding. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add: I hadn't even seen Threats to sea turtles, mentioned below. That is the obvious merge target. The fact that there are no less than three different large articles to which this material could be merged demonstrates that we really do not need another standalone production that consists of 2/3 duplication. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Per WP:CSK, Absence of a deletion rationale. Nomination is a single, unnecessarily bitey, sentence that does not constitute an objective deletion rationale based on policies & guidance. The maintenance template {{Term paper}} has been reasonably applied to the article. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I should further say that I agree that the article as it stands could be shortened and the language tightened so as to focus more specifically on the topic in question, and better integrated into the encyclopedia using wikilinks to existing articles. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Speedy keep" is inappropriate because the article has obvious problems - rambling scope and massive duplication of content. Dissatisfaction with the nom statement (which I agree is not very informative) is no reason to toss a substandard article that will have to dealt with back into the pot. Or to put it differently, if this was to be "speedy kept" based on these spurious arguments, I would have it back at AfD with a more elaborate rationale within a day. Let's sort it out her and leave out the unproductive process-lawyering. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep I agree with SunloungerFrog, there is no valid deletion rationale given here and the nom is likely to dissuade the editor who created the article. It's been less than a day since the article was tagged "Term paper" --- at least give time for the author to update the article. There is clearly research out there, and probably enough to meet GNG on its own or enough to significantly add to similar articles on sea turtles or erosion.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether or not an article is kept is decided by the sourcing situation, not by the current quality of the article. I also suggest the nominator should refrain from personal attacks against other editors in the future, and provide proper a deletion rational instead. Cortador (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy draftify The keep votes fail to advance any reason to keep the article, which is quite obviously a student essay that does not meet our standard for tone or content for articles. I urge the class instructor Use:Bcndz5 not to permit students to create in mainspace the pages listed at Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/IES Abroad Barcelona/The Climate Crisis - Global Perspective, Mediterranean Context (Spring), as basically none of these have appropriate encyclopedic tone or are appropriate topics for standalone encyclopedia articles, the worst of which being User:Jkraus1313/Floating Cities and Amphibious Architecture. Articles should generally not have specific titles with complex names like some of these. This article would be better trimmed of the background, irrelevant info like all of the Long-term impacts section, and essay-type fluff and the topic instead included at Threats to sea turtles. Reywas92^Talk 14:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would be content enough with draftification to allow the creating editors a second pass and more time to work on the article, and ultimately to decide whether it is better to incorporate the content into an existing article. Courtesy ping to Bcndz5 as class instructor - I think the wikisource in Reywas92's comment above is missing an r. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is too specific for mainspace. The keep votes don't provide an argument why this topic is notable. Threats to sea turtles is sufficient enough. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no specific mention in the nomination per WP:CSK mentioned by SunloungerFrog and a remark that can pass as a personal biting remark too "not a place to store your" with "suggest Google Drive" sounds like an attack or rant and goes against WP:GTD. Furthermore, the time period is not too long. Do give time and check more sources if they are added with allowing further edits by creator/editors. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder about the origin of this scurrilous notion that an "insufficient nom rationale" alone justifies a keep vote, when at the same time multiple commenters provide a number of valid rationales. Ignoring those is a peculiar type of non-constructive WP:POINTiness that may feel righteous but accomplishes nothing else. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is your pov and the nomination itself is WP:POINTY, and I have stated it is against WP:GTD which is constructive. Anyone should not get in arguments to make other's points lesser or present their own opinion as a better one. By the way, here is a great point from the same you pointed out-

do not nominate an article for deletion that you don't really believe ought to be deleted, giving the same rationale. with giving no reasons it is the same as noted here.

You can have your pov as long as it is not demeaning others and others can have theirs likewise. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wojciech Papis

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

Niche Polish politician. Never held any office or won any election. He did declare himself as a candidate for a presidential election, but it's just a publicity stunt, with no serious coverage. No pl wiki interwiki, no sources in the article that meet WP:SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I can even defend this article, haha. The only thing that it's useful for is Joanna Senyszyn having her Nonpartisans endorsement link here. Polish kurd (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Mari Petroleum Mil Mi-8 crash

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Pakistan. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of WP:News articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

T2 (Saudi company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Routine investment agreements, partnerships, M&As are not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Gheus (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP. Nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. Was waiting to nominate this one myself as part of a batch from a possible COI but didn't want to seem "bludgeoning" while another AfD of theirs was going on. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

XinFin

AfDs for this article:

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

Sourced using crypto-focused publications (WP:NCRYPTO) or primary sources. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been unable to find in-depth, reliable sources about XinFin. Most discussion is either in crypto publications or Indian publications that are not fully reliable. Does not meet NCORP or GNG.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: I've just blocked the creator as a sock of Shubhamgawali1, making this article technically eligible for G5 deletion. I've held off on that since it's already here. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The usual suspects, crypto blogs, PR items, are all I can find. Sourcing now isn't useful, other than the Forbes piece, that isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indistinguishable from the typical crypto paid-for spam. MER-C 16:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tercio of Fuenclara

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

The same reasons as described in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tercio of Idiáquez (2nd nomination) Bubba6t3411 (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tercio of Idiáquez

AfDs for this article:

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

Practically everything that has been written to expand the article in order to prevent it from being deleted is false (other than the Thirty Years' War section). The previous user who withdrew their AfD nomination did not fact check any of the sources or information added. The article has been expanded incorrectly and mostly falsified (though it's likely, or at least I'd like to think, that it wasn't done on purpose and the editor who expanded the article just wanted to help improve it). If you wish to help improve the article, please use proper sources which correlate with the information written. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jello Biafra and the Guantanamo School of Medicine

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

Article seems like it is better suited to be a paragraph under Jello's article. It was started in 2009 by someone whose only two edits were this article, and the talk page has a note from someone with a COI adding content. The tone needs revision and there haven't been many reliable source references added during the life of the article. Submitting for discussion by other editors. LovelyLillith (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. LovelyLillith (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge all the work with the band: There are three pages for this band's albums/EPs and each has 2+ reviews that can be expanded on the band's page. I think it's already enough to keep it. LastJabberwocky (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the last voter, as the band has relatively little coverage in feature articles but their albums are getting a lot of professional reviews from which some more band history can be gleaned. The band's article is currently dependent on some unreliable sources but those can be removed via the standard editing process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Csilla Molnar (model)

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

Not to be confused with Csilla Molnár. No significant coverage for ANYBIO and doesn't qualify WP:NMODEL. Hmr (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. Hmr (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Awesomecat713 (talk) 06:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as not notable. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Humming Airways

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

Nothing to satisfy WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage in reliable and secondary sources. WP:TOOSOON also. Bakhtar40 (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Argentina. Bakhtar40 (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Zauq Nadvi

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

This BLP article has been tagged for the use of unreliable sources since 2020. Wikipedia's strict standards for Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) require that all content be supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Upon review, I found that the article cites eight sources, six of which are entirely unreliable, including local book-selling websites, while another provides only a trivial mention. The article relies almost entirely on Nadvi, Jasim ad-Din (2019); however, no direct link is provided, and the reference appears to be from a user-generated website, which does not meet Wikipedia’s reliability standards. I considered removing the material cited from this user-generated source, but doing so would leave the article as little more than a one-line stub. Due to the lack of reliable, independent secondary sources, the subject fails to satisfy the notability guidelines outlined in WP:Scholar, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:GNG, and therefore, the article is not eligible for retention and should be deleted.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Communist League (Maoist)

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

Fails GNG; cannot find any SIGCOV in reliable sources; cited sources are all blogs and party communications. "History" section appears to be SYNTH, as its one source makes no mention of this group that I can find, and further statements are uncited. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Europe, and South America. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable organisation. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. notable as per argument above Castroonthemoon (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What argument? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – In case someone argues that niche topics may only have coverage in their niches, from my search at least, there is an absence of coverage even in other communist and socialist organisations' publications. I don't expect an international of mostly non-notable organisations to have coverage beyond their members' own works. Yue🌙 00:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fantom (rapper)

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

I have blocked the author as a probable UPE, but this page falls just short of G11, in my view. Nonetheless, I'm unable to find evidence that its subject meets GNG or any other applicable threshold. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Haiti. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From a quick cursory search (in French though), I think with [81], [82], [83], [84], etc, WP:MUSICBIO #1 is met, I am still looking. I first thought his burning incident was a WP:BLP1E, but I don't think so again. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The first two sources in Le Nouvelliste are album/song reviews (comment above), those help. Mention here in the Miami Herald [85], should have enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Savitech

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

no wp:sigcov, fails wp:gng ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 16:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Taiwan. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 16:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I was unable to find significant coverage in my searches for sources. Savitech (traditional Chinese: 盛微先進科技; simplified Chinese: 盛微先进科技) does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article: I believe this article meets notability guidelines. savitech are the developers of the LHDC Bluetooth codec, one of only a handful of codecs certified by the Japan Audio Society for Hi-Res Audio Wireless. That’s a significant technical achievement and recognition from a respected industry body. These sources talk about Savitech and their codec in a substantive way, which supports notability beyond just a passing mention. As for the tone of the article, I agree some parts might read a little promotional — that can and should be fixed with copyedits. But promotional tone alone isn't a reason to delete the article outright, especially when the subject is clearly relevant in the tech/audio industry and verifiable with reliable sources. A cleanup tag seems more appropriate than deletion. Just to be transparent: I’m not affiliated with Savitech, nor have I been paid to write this article. I created it in my free time because I think LHDC is an underrepresented but notable technology in the wireless audio space. Happy to help improve the article further if needed. User:AthulKriZz (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you list sources that provide significant coverage in reliable sources about the company? The company must meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria for the article to be kept. Cunard (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in the article are a company database (not sigcov), the company website (not independent), a press release (not independent), and a news article that is so blatantly promotional it is either a press release or a paid piece. I couldn't find anything better via a web search, just more press releases and the occasional passing mention. Toadspike [Talk] 21:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Ward Community Redevelopment Corporation

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

Subject does not appear to be notable per WP:NGO upon search. The current sources are either primary or not WP:SIGCOV, and the article seems to be promotional. Also, it seems that the article creator has a WP:COI with the subject, having only made edits to the subject's article. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Texas. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Shafi (cyclist)

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

I have limited knowledge about the notability criteria for sportspersons. That being said, the subject does not appear notable to me. How is merely participating in an Olympic event sufficient for notability, especially when there are over 5,000 participants?–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 02:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Pakistan. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 02:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cycling and Olympics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nomination has it quite right: simply competing at the Olympics does not indicate novelty. No IRS SIGCOV found in my WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Ratnayake

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

REDIRECT to Miss Universe Sri Lanka. Fails WP:GNG - the winner of a national beauty pageant (see WP:1EVENT) however apart from that there is no evidence of any other significant achievements. Failed to place at international level. Dan arndt (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Universe Sri Lanka fails WP:GNG for standalone article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giri Balasubramanium

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

Subject does not seem to be notable upon searching for reliable, secondary sources. Also, the creator of this article seems to have a undisclosed connection to the subject. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability concerns aside, which perhaps others may address first, I would note as the original contributor to the article that the claims of connection to subject are unfounded and likely unnecessary to the PROD discussion. Giri was a popular quizmaster for many competitions I attended (with hundreds of other students), over 12 years ago, and the motivation to contribute came from that. I don't believe that qualifies as a close connection. Cheers Komodo (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A borderline WP:G11 article. Reads like promotion. None of the sources cited are reliable or do anything to establish notability. Junbeesh (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has been updated significantly. The promotional content was removed and factual information was re-written in a WP:NPOV tone. Further, primary and promotional materials citations were removed and independent, secondary and reliable sources from media coverage were added. Let me know if this doesn't address your WP:NOTABLE concerns or if you have any other feedback. Komodo (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like an advertisement or promotional article. Possible Wp:COI. Zuck28 (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has been updated significantly and content contributed by possible COI editor has been removed in this re-write. Let me know if you have further feedback. Komodo (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article was significantly re-written to address concerns noted above for the article -- including secondary coverage and reliable sources, though I should note that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Nonetheless, WP:NOTABILITY concerns should have been addressed as well with this coverage, but further information on why this article meets the criteria: (a) Significant coverage in reliable and independent sources: He has received coverage beyond simple announcements or listings. Sources like news outlets (Times of India, Deccan Herald snippets mentioning quizzes he hosts), articles about major events he leads (Tata Crucible coverage, TCS IT Wiz) but does not own, interviews (like in People Matters), and platforms featuring his talks (TEDx) constitute significant mentions in reliable contexts. While his company website or speaker profiles are primary or promotional, significant coverage exists independently. (b) Evidence of recognition and impact: His position as the quizmaster for the high-profile Tata Crucible quizzes since 2004 is a long-standing, nationally recognized role. Similarly, hosting the large-scale TCS IT Wiz/InQuizitive adds to this prominence. Greycaps, his company, has been described in multiple sources as one of Asia's largest in its niche. Finally, he is a frequent speaker, including on platforms like TEDx, that demonstrates a public profile and recognition in his field.

Tata Crucible --- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
TCS IT Wiz --- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: further discussion warranted considering changes made to article and sources utilized.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Alberto Capella

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDEPTH. Absolutiva (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being the only prisoner of an entire country for several years is fairly unique. There is substantial in depth coverage from a quick seatch, and there is what appears to be sigcov in many books, not just news [86]. The news coverage also appears to be indepth. The 2021 piece is fairly indepth and a decent refutation of it being NOTNEWS. He was a diplomat, a fairly significant position, so there also appears to be coverage on that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kadir Çakır

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCURLING. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Turkey. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fatih Ağduman

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCURLING. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Turkey. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael W. Foley

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

Unable to locate significant coverage. The best source available appears to be a press release (no longer available directly online). Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 00:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Technology, and Computing. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 00:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arizona and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd say this can also fall under WP:PROMO, the only edits from the original account was this page and Bluetooth Special Interest Group, the article's tone is promotional as well. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Coalition for Homeless Veterans

AfDs for this article:

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

Unable to locate any significant sufficient coverage that demonstrates notability beyond national law review. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Information and sourcing is over a decade out of date. See https://nchv.org/ — Maile (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[1]

[2]