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

< March 11	March 13 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Shaimaa Gamal

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

Non-notable TV presenter, fails GNG ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 06:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

● Shimaa Gamal's murder got much more attention in Arabic media than in English media. The case was shocking because she was a TV presenter, and her husband, a senior judge, was involved. The crime's brutality kept it a major topic in the Arab world, while English media cover was limited . Mohamed Ouda (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Egypt. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohamed Ouda, it doesn't matter about the coverage based on language. Give some references about her even if is Arab media. --☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 10:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CSMention269 Sure here is some references

"المذيعة شيماء جمال..النيابة المصرية تتهم قاضيا معروفا بقتلها وإخفاء جثتها في مزرعة". BBC News عربي (in Arabic). 2022-06-28. Retrieved 2025-03-06.
"مصر.. حكم نهائي بإعدام القاضي قاتل زوجته الإعلامية شيماء جمال وشريكه". CNN Arabic (in Arabic). 2024-07-08. Retrieved 2025-03-06.
"تفاصيل القضية من البداية.. الحكم بإعدام القاضي قاتل زوجته المذيعة في مصر". Skynewsarabia (in Arabic). Retrieved 2025-03-06.
"الإعدام شنقا لقاض مصري وشريكه في جريمة قتل المذيعة شيماء جمال". Aljazeera.net (in Arabic). Retrieved 2025-03-06.
"MSN". www.msn.com. Retrieved 2025-03-06.

Mohamed Ouda (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move -- After seeing the coverage shared by Mohamed Ouda, it looks to me like she might fall into WP:BIO1E & WP:CRIME territory. She does not necessarily meet notability guidelines as a TV presenter, but potentially does as a victim. A quick Google search showed me significant coverage in English of her murder, the ensuing trial, and the death sentence for her husband--I'd say that her murder meets GNG. However, it might be more appropriate to move to an article about the murder, as WP:CRIME recommends those articles over biographies of crime victims. It might be a keep if not moved. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 22:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Move: to an article about the murder as suggested seems like a better choice, there is ample coverage about the event, rather than just about the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Dodge City, Kansas

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

List article of not notable local politicians. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and Kansas. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. James H. Kelley, George M. Hoover, Adolph Gluck, and Robert M. Wright are all notable. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Along with Lawrence Deger and Hamilton Bell. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Dodge City, Kansas#Government. A city with 28K residents doesn't warrant a standalone mayor list. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For a relatively small city, Dodge City has had an outsized influence on American culture. [1] [2] [3] GeorgiaHuman (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Size of the city should not matter at AFD. A separate list of mayors could be justified by the size of the parent page about the municipality. Also see WP:SPLIT. --Enos733 (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Size does matter. A place like Estherville, Iowa, does not warrant a list of mayors. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When we look at WP:N, size is not a characteristic to determine whether a subject meets our notability guidelines. The core standard is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." So, as long as there is sufficient coverage, a stand-alone page/list could exist. A quick search for "real-world notability" in our talk pages shows there is no consensus for a policy to determine what is "worthy of notice" besides GNG coverage. So, the question for any list of mayors is not the size of the city, but a) whether there is sufficient coverage for a stand alone page, meeting WP:NLIST or b) whether a stand alone page is warranted because of the size of the parent page and the size of the list, or other WP:DUE factors.

I generally think a merge may be better in many cases than a stand-alone list, but in this case, I worry about the size of the parent page if the list is added. The list of mayors page for Dodge City contains over 20 entries and is not (at this moment) a complete list. So, from a readably perspective, a stand-alone list is preferable. - Enos733 (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dodge City, Kansas#Government, perhaps in a collapsible list to help readability. The concept of a list should exist somewhere on wikipedia, so we should not delete. Masohpotato (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 2012 Arcadia Publishing book on Dodge City and the 2006 Historical Gazetteer of the United States (ISBN 9781135948597) make for interesting reading. History, for Dodge City, just stops, with the birth of Dennis Hopper in 1936, and most of the history for the 2 decades prior is related to movies and commemorations of the history up until around the turn of the 20th century. Which is why this list looks like it falls off a cliff, in terms of notability and sourcing and sudden appearance of c.s, just over one third of the way down. But even the top third is dodgy. History books don't record all of the annual elections, only the interesting ones. R. W. Evans in court in the 20th century didn't remember when xe was mayor, and no-one else records it. And not even all of the annual results that we do know are here, such as George M. Hoover's mayorship in 1876 or Gluck's being ousted in 1895. I have some doubt that it is actually possible to complete this list, even for the well-recorded part, let alone for the later part where mayors are being deduced from publication dates of gazetteers and directory publications. Uncle G (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Szwimer

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

Coverage is limited. A few major publications wrote about his podcast, but all around the same time when it first launched so it's basically all advertisements and not particularly substantial. His name also comes up in coverage of the end of Arthur because it was announced in an episode of the podcast, but none of the coverage is focused on him or the podcast. NACTOR asks for "significant roles in multiple notable [projects]" (emphasis mine), and it seems to me that he only has one. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think he does meet WP:NACTOR - as well as his significant role in Arthur (TV series), he was in all 26 episodes of the 2 series of The Tofus, as Phil, the best friend and confidant of the main character, Chichi. That seems like a significant role to me. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This would probably require a whole other discussion, and is certainly outside my area of expertise, but looking at The Tofus, I'm not entirely sure that series is notable, or at least not as far as its Wikipedia article shows. Among its sources, I see multiple primary sources and indexes/databases, but only two (KidScreen Magazine and C21Media) providing independent news coverage. Doesn't seem like enough to me. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More than likely notable for the role of DW in "Arthur", with coverage here [4], [5], [6]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists for Human Rights

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

Promotional, non-notable, almost entirely self-sourced. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Organizations, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Alexthegod5 (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs work. Suggest deal with by adding appropriate tags.ash (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been tagged as "promotional" for 9 years. Wellington Bay (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand but that doesn't make the organisation less notable and AfD isn't supposed to be a process for improving an article. ash (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Btw: I've revised the article and removed the promotional tag. ash (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bandung Independent School

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

Completely unsourced article (I removed entirely unsourced promotional material prior to starting this). The local-language version is also completely unsourced [7]. Just a small local school with 200 students across 16 years. 🄻 🄰 15:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Asia, and Indonesia. 🄻 🄰 15:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of the article is not what deletion discussions are about. It's about the subject. Did you do BEFORE? 4.37.252.50 (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not cite any sources and meet GNG --Old-AgedKid (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Cyber Force

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

This appears to be a hoax created with the help of a couple of press releases without a byline, along with some trivial mentions on random cybersecurity websites. The majority of the sources are completely irrelevant to "Indian Cyber Force" and do not even mention it. The rest are just press releases, while some have only reported what the subject has tweeted. I can find no reliable, bylined sources with WP:SIGCOV about the subject itself but only about what they claim to have done. Fails WP:GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Internet, Websites, and India. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it seems like all the sources about it I can find with a google search are from Twitter, which aren’t reliable; any other are just claims. Plus, at least one of attacks they claimed (the one on Canadian gov website) was denied to even have happened. I could have waited 1 second, but I waited 2 seconds. I can sometimes accidentally or not contribute, but you can talk to me sometimes. 17:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I mean it happened [8], Yahoo/Reuters [9]...[10]. Even in Canada it was only briefly on the news. I'd almost argue the hack is more notable than this group. Nothing happened since then it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an article about the hack, it garnered some coverage. The Canadian gov't doesn't get hacked to this extent (that we've been told about anyway), so that is likely a notable event. Oaktree b (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The low-level hacks were claimed by an obscure pro-India group going by the name "Indian Cyber Force," whose logo includes an American bald eagle with orange and green wings, the colors of the Indian flag.
I am not even sure if the hack is notable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there more support for a Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UK parliamentary caucus

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

This is a poorly written page with no basis in reality Trivran (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from recent edits, I have been overhauling the page, mostly in format. Going forward I am gonna do research and try to work out what caucuses still exist and how large they are. It is poorly written as its an irrelevant page which only yesterday I have begun to transform. Let me work on it a bit. Pathfinder2023 (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no caucuses exist because this isn't america hope this helps Trivran (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy oppose deletion- no policy basis for proposal. AfD is not the correct place for discussing problems with article titles. I would support a move to UK parliamentary factions or UK parliamentary groups, as RS tend to use those terms more than the word "caucus", but again this is not the right place for discussing that. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the use of Groups instead of caucuses. LFI and Christians on the Left aren't factions but groups in parliament. Pathfinder2023 (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's grounds for a speedy keep or a procedural close here. As far as I can tell it doesn't meet any of the criteria CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 09:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SKCRIT number 1- nominator gave no policy-based grounds for deletion (neither being poorly written or poorly titled are listed at WP:DEL-REASON), possibly also WP:SKCRIT 2b Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 02:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:OR This article has been created and updated by editors with no idea how the UK Parliament works. The terms "parliamentary caucus" and "parliamentary groups" simply aren't used in the UK. Whilst the Parliamentary authorities recognise parties, they do not recognise any of the "groups" listed under each party in the article. Most of these are just informal political groups/associations of MPs and non-MPs with similar political views. And an MP may be affiliated/associated to more than one "group". Obi2canibe (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- These groups are indeed informal, but that doesn't mean they don't exist (or have some influence); and such groups are frequently described by parliamentary insiders as "caucuses". See e.g. [11] or [12]. 78.33.29.98 (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If we have articles about the various groups within a party then it seems entirely reasonable to have them also in a list. The lead should be expanded though to make clear that mps can be in more than 1 or 0 groups and that these groups are informal. It is unclear to me whether this article would include the notable All-party parliamentary groups (parliament) or if that would be a separtate article. I would not include the non-notable ones (most in this list), this list could be an external link though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolluik (talk • contribs) 22:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Move to List of UK parliamentary groups - plainly notable, meets NLIST. CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 01:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Terrible deletion rationale provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada

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

Seems like a WP:BLP1E. Only coverage is to do with The Kite Runner (film) spanning early 2007 to early 2008. Little followup coverage, failing WP:SUSTAINED. I think a redirect to the film would be acceptable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zekeria Ebrahimi, a recent AfD about another Afghani child actor in the same film who was redirected. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Afghanistan. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am not persuaded that they pass WP:NACTOR, nor WP:BIO. Delete without prejudice to a future re-creation once they pass our notability criteria. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The_Kite_Runner_(film)#Cast: per nom. (NB-BLP1E does not apply to works of art, only to events). -Mushy Yank. 23:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the controversy surrounding the child actors in the Kite Runner, including Mahmoodzada, which gained considerable news coverage at the time, counts as an event for BLP1E purposes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, sure, absolutely!! You're absolutely right. Sorry. -Mushy Yank. 23:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Satan (franchise)

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

Fails GNG as a franchise. Not really even a franchise (1 TV show and a movie) could maybe be merged into the movie article Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suppose what we need is a definition of what Wikipedia would consider to be a franchise. The Lists of multimedia franchises article requires:

In order to qualify for these lists, a franchise must have works in at least three forms of media, and must have two or more separate works in at least two of those forms of media (a television series or comic book series is considered a single work for purposes of this list; multiple spin-off series or reboots of a previously ended series are considered multiple works).

That's to be listed on the page though, so it could be argued that a franchise page might be able to get away with a little bit less. The question is how much less. This has a film, a TV show, and two soundtracks. Soundtracks strike me as something that could be counted in a franchise but are often overlooked unless the soundtrack is particularly noteworthy.

Aside from that, I suppose there's also a question if a spinoff page for the franchise is warranted for what we have so far. Offhand I'm inclined to say leave it, as it could be a good place to cover information about the soundtracks and the sequel film in one location, as opposed to weighing down the main film article. However the coverage for this is also kind of light. I'd need to search for more sourcing before making any definitive judgement. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like with the sequel film, a comic series was also announced. Neither has released yet, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sound tracks could be merged to their respective page Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True, but there's still that question to answer: what is the bare minimum needed to justify a franchise article on Wikipedia and does announced content qualify? Part of the issue here is that the film article would end up doing a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to anything dealing with the series (films, comic, soundtracks, TV show), even with the TV show having its own article. It's not completely unreasonable for this to have its own article as a spinoff - I'm not saying that it should have one, just that it's not as cut and dry as if it were only the film and movie. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does it matter whether or not the film was terrible? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not. -Mushy Yank. 11:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Al-Harazi

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

Contested prod with reason " subject meets NATH for 1988 international medal" . I do not believe the 1988 Arab U20 Athletics Championships is a "other major senior-level international competition". All 3 sources are still databases and lacking SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. And using WP:NEXIST when no actual sources are provided is not an argument for keeping. LibStar (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Yemen. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this international medal-winning athlete until a comprehensive source search can demonstrate that there is no coverage. There's no evidence that WP:BEFORE was performed – the nominator has made dozens of similar nominations over the past month and just yesterday was told, "The lack of WP:BEFORE from this nom is frankly appaling" on a similar nomination. The truth is that Al-Harazi is no less notable or covered than Ferreira – the only difference is the lack of available coverage from a nation that is in the midst of a massive conflict that makes it difficult to get historical information.

On WP:NEXIST – a nominator cannot pre-emptively forbid valid applications of Wikipedia P&G in the nomination. The NEXIST guideline is a part of WP:N and has achieved broad community consensus for exactly these sorts of situations. To be absolutely clear, I have searched for further info about Al-Harazi and was not able to find anything on the web. That only means a physical media search is necessary, and leaving the article up to be improved by anyone while this is performed is the best outcome. --Habst (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The medal is not from a major senior-level international competition. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin said "a nomination cannot be procedurally closed simply because the nominator didn't check for sources in a language with which they are unfamiliar. Contrarily, WP:NEXIST clearly tells us, However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." LibStar (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence from " major senior-level international competition" please provide. LibStar (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar, which admin said that, and what was the context? --Habst (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Context of these AfDs and you continually bringing up this weak argument. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ismael_Mahmoud_Ghassab. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin said "Please focus on finding and assessing sources". LibStar (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a weak argument, it has broad community consensus. If you disagree with the merits (i.e. the rationale for NEXIST) then you can respond to those terms. But summarily dismissing all NEXIST isn't productive. I agree we should be finding sources – when the article was PRODed I already did a search to the best of my abilities. I'm trying other avenues but the AfD only lasts a week. --Habst (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the medal "from a major senior-level international competition"? The under 20 Arab championships do not count. LibStar (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the medal was at a U20-level competition. It's relevant in this case because the medal was won on the same year as his Olympic performance – the athlete was already competing on the senior level at the time of the medal, unlike most U20 athletes which don't progress to that stage until later. NATH was never intended to only be a box-checking exercise, and context should be applied. --Habst (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the context is this athlete is non notable. Funny how you don't want to argue with the editor below who disagrees with you. LibStar (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar, I don't think just calling something "not notable" is persuasive, see WP:NOTNOTABLE. "Funny how you don't want to argue with the editor below who disagrees with you" – I have responded to Geschichte multiple times before and have a lot of respect for both of your contributions. The difference is that you are the only one that responded directly to my !vote. I don't understand why you need to make a comment like that having nothing to do with the nomination. --Habst (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I make comments how I see fit. LibStar (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The problem is that the article should never have been created in the first place, but was anyway, by one of the most problematic users in Wikipedia history. The claim to notability in this case is so weak as to moot the need for a comprehensive source search - in media outlets that might not be archived in something resembling a practical format. Articles like this, and other athletes without results that seem to merit encyclopedic inclusion, should be (re)created only if and when this happens. Geschichte (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Geschichte. NEXIST does not exempt an article subject from actually having verifiable SIGCOV. It is merely a reminder that notability should not be judged solely by the sources already present in an article. JoelleJay (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to North Yemen at the 1988 Summer Olympics where his "did not avance" result in the 5000m at the 1988 Olympics is preserved. Lacks the SIGCOV needed for a stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ould Khalifa

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

Declined prod, there is a hidden reference added https://web.archive.org/web/20150219002200/http://www.arabathletics.org/files/Magazines/issue-34.pdf but I'm unsure if this is SIGCOV as it's not cited in the article. Secondly, the current 3 sources are all databases so article still fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. Coming 17th in 1 event and not finishing another is hardly a noteworthy career. And using WP:NEXIST when no actual sources are provided is not an argument for keeping. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I believe the subject is covered in the magazine but I left it as a comment because I'm not knowledgeable enough in Arabic to incorporate the coverage into the article. Subject qualified for the Olympics twice and was Mauritania's only long-distance representative. --Habst (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Shoal Recordings

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

Declined prod. Created by a single purpose editor. Unreferenced for 12 years and fails WP:CORP. Very limited google news results and 1 line mentions in google books. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to be significant coverage out there, in agreement with LibStar. I cut some of the promotional tone from the article, and added an interview in Igloo Magazine, but I don't think there's much more that could be integrated. Boredintheevening (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete. The article lacks significant coverage from reliable sources, has remained unreferenced for over a decade, and does not meet WP:CORP. Efforts to improve it have not uncovered enough substantive content to justify retention.--Old-AgedKid (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Thiel (cross-country skier)

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

A microstub article on a non-notable Olympic athlete. As per WP:LUGSTUBS and WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 22:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Germany. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 22:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no idea why the nominator refers to WP:LUGSTUBS, which allows for moving the article to draft space without an AfD. That should have been done instead of nominating for deletion. StAnselm (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Lugstubs only applied to a specific category of ~1,000 early Olympians. It does not allow for the moving of articles such as this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry - my mistake. Obviously, it shouldn't be cited in a deletion rationale either way. St Anselm (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cross-country skiing at the 1968 Winter Olympics – Men's 15 kilometre as an appropriate ATD for individuals who participated in an Olympic games. --Enos733 (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Mimic (Roblox)

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

There's nothing here that suggests that a split off from List of Roblox games is necessary. I'm all for Roblox games having their own articles under special circumstances like Adopt Me! or Dress to Impress (video game), but this article's sourcing is near entirely based on listicles from some of the lowest quality sources allowed by WP:VG/S like GameRant and Dexerto (both of which cannot demonstrate notability), flat out unreliable sources like Sportskeeda, sources with dubious reliability like Android Authority, or low quality game guide content. And while I do believe that rankings can be used to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV depending on the circumstance and the source itself, what is here simply is not enough and the sources are quite frankly garbage. The reception towards the game, which is generally what determines the life or death of a video game article, is also extremely lacking as a result; most of it is sourced to TheGamer, which is another source that can't demonstrate notability per WP:VALNET.

There is no actual material or sourcing present in this article that leads me to believe that this Roblox game meets the general-notability guidelines, and it should probably be redirected or merged into List of Roblox games. Also, not that this is not the first time articles for Roblox games have been nominated for deletion and merged back into the list article. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pet Simulator, a very recent deletion discussion for another Roblox game that has similar if not equal coverage in reliable sources to this game, yet still is not notable. λ NegativeMP1 22:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 22:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the original page author tried to blank the page and redirect it back to the list entry. I assume that this is an admission or the nominator wanting it gone, but I think their official vote here might be needed. Also, here's the permanent revision link in-case it gets blanked again during the course of this discussion. λ NegativeMP1 22:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Roblox games. EternalBaile (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also specify which sources are not reliable? So I can remove them. EternalBaile (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sp*rtskeeda, ctstudios, android police, g(i)nx. there should be more but brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 03:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to list of roblox games. absolutely zero sigcov (and no fothermuckin RS with just that) brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 03:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Panathinaikos eSports

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

Propose deleting or redirecting to Panathinaikos A.O. per WP:ORG and WP:NSPORT. Non-primary coverage by reliable sources in this article and discoverable through a cursory web search is limited to announcements of the department's creation. None of its teams have made significant accomplishments, e.g. winning a tier-one or even a tier-two tournament. Greek-language coverage may be more numerous, but a lack of coverage in other languages speaks to its overall notability outside of the incredibly small national scene in Greece. Yue🌙 21:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Yue🌙 21:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Nickps (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bijan Gloston

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

I am unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for this former soccer player. All that comes up are passing mentions like 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Oceania, Tennessee, and West Virginia. JTtheOG (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Los Ratones

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

Propose deleting or redirecting to Caedrel per WP:ORG and WP:NSPORT. Los Ratones does have coverage in reliable sources focused on esports, such as Esports Illustrated (a subsidiary of Sports Illustrated), The Esports Insider, Esports News UK, and Esports.gg, but the coverage does not establish a claim to notability.

An organisation being popular because of its owner (Caedrel) and players' fanbase does not speak to the notability of the organisation, but to the owner and players. Being the first professional / semi-professional team to be allowed to live stream practice games ('scrims') is not an incredibly notable element even within just the purview of League of Legends esports.

The team itself has not yet accomplished anything notable, winning a tier-three tournament recently (NLC) and possibly a tier-two tournament in the coming weeks (EMEA Masters). General popularity driven by its owner and players does not equate to standalone notability, but probably does warrant a mention in the owner's (primarily) and players' articles. Yue🌙 21:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Yue🌙 21:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GlobalLogic

AfDs for this article:

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

Nonnotable outsourcing business. Only regular PR, not a word about the essence of business. Nothing to say, I guess. --Altenmann >talk 19:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Flowers (footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG Routine match reports and no WP:SIGCOV Canary757 (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Canary757 (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Colchester United F.C. players (1–24 appearances). Geschichte (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Geschichte. – RossEvans19 (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saurabh Banaudha

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

Appears to be self-WP:PROMO and a declared WP:AUTOBIO. Repeatedly declined at AfC and moved back to mainspace. Not convinced meets WP:NMUSIC. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has been published with WP:AUTOBIO declaration. Content and language has already been improved to meet Wiki guidelines. With due regards for Wiki community expectations, the article is worthy enough to be on Wiki and adheres to the guidelines for notability, neutrality, authenticity, transparency, encyclopedic tone, and realism. Saurabhbanaudha (talk) 11:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Reflects the work and contribution of a recognized artist at national level. Compared change versions. Not a WP:PROMO anymore after previous edits. WP:AUTOBIO declared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.20.181 (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Though brief, it meets basic Wikipedia criteria's with reliable verifiable sources. Article highlights an artist's work and impact and someone who is multi-talented. Deleting it would overlook key references and subject's significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:303E:D870:A889:C425:C85:25FD (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is clear that the article has been repeatedly edited since first submission and now looks good enough to be retained as per Wiki guidelines. Article meets the notability criteria for musicians due to his role in the Indian classical music scene. Reference highlights empanelment in a selective list by Indian Govt and that's a strong independent trustworthy reference. I suggest we keep and help improve. Mjonesinfinite (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Brand fresh new account. --Altenmann >talk 06:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, been using Wiki for 10+ yrs, only made an account to join this convo – seemed needed. Let’s focus on the relevant stuff, not the profile Mjonesinfinite (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete. I removed refbombing and unref self-glory, and now nothing to read. --Altenmann >talk 19:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, the article is bare bones now, he's a flutist that performs and has a degree... This is non-notable. I can only find one source, simply a confirmation of a performance. What's left for sourcing in the article is a gov't document and primary or non-RS. This is an easy !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the same was before, only hidden in fluff. --Altenmann >talk 21:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same reasons as Nom and Oaktree b. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 20:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the same person wrote up a bio of supposedly his teacher, Pandit Niranjan Prasad. Please evaluate the notability as well. --Altenmann >talk 01:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - objectively, the subject fails every possible criteria for WP:NMUSIC, except possibly "7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards," (emphasis added) but there is not much sourcing left after the deprecated sources were removed. I would have written the opposite, but I'm not a fan of autobiographical editing. Bearian (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dim Tu Tac

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

Not a notable restaurant. The same article was deleted in Vietnamese Wikipedia. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:F892:9359:6F4F:9215 (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have moved this nomination from its talk page to here (apologies if this is out of process in any way; this is not the usual method for nominations by IPs). No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Vietnam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 12 March 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 March 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TEDxPortland 2024

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

No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 18:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 18:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

== Keep ==

This article should be kept because TEDxPortland is one of the largest TEDx events in the world and the largest in North America, with thousands of attendees and significant media coverage

Notability (WP:GNG & WP:EVENT)

TEDxPortland 2024 meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for events ([WP:EVENT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events))). It is part of a globally recognized TEDx series, and the event itself has been featured in multiple independent sources, including:

Portland Thorns FC news – Recognizing TEDxPortland as the largest TEDx event in North America*
KOIN News – Reporting on TEDxPortland’s record-breaking attendance.
Official TEDxPortland website (Link) – Documenting notable speakers, sponsors, and impact

Precedent (Similar TEDx Event Articles Exist)

Other TEDx event pages exist on Wikipedia, including:

TEDxPortland is significantly larger and more well-documented than some of these events, justifying its inclusion.

Reliable Sources & Coverage

The article does not rely solely on primary sources. Instead, it includes independent coverage from news outlets. Videos of TEDxPortland talks are officially published on the TEDx YouTube channel, further establishing its cultural and educational value.

Conclusion

TEDxPortland 2024 meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for events, has significant third-party coverage, and aligns with existing TEDx event articles. Deleting it would be inconsistent with precedent. Instead editors should improve the article by adding more independent coverage rather than deleting it.

Keep. Hifisamurai (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's not really a precedent for having pages about individuals TEDx events, consider converting this page into a single section and merging to TEDxPortland. Seems like a generally helpful section for the existing article, which can be further improved over time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken your advice and added a section to the TEDxPortland article. The new section titled Events and speakers. Hifisamurai (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hifisamurai If you're comfortable with editors redirecting/merging TEDxPortland 2024, you might change your vote here so the discussion could possibly be closed sooner than later. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of notability of this individual event beyond standard PR/announcements. Whatever worth mentioning is already in TEDxPortland#2024_Theme:_Alchemy. --Altenmann >talk 19:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Altenmann The page would serve a purpose as a redirect, then, if you're willing to change to "redirect/merge". Deleting the page history altogether doesn't seem necessary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect, useless content: wikipedia is not a "cloud storage" for various information: people will naturally search for "TEDxPortland" --Altenmann >talk 21:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap, but all good, I'm moving on as the page creator has weighed in above. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Redirect to the main TedXPortland article, I dont' see this as being any more notable than any of the other TedX conferences held in Portland. Would likely have been PROMO for the event, no passed. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thato Dithebe

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

Promo piece on a non-notable TV personality. The sources are all churnalism, passing mentions, non-reliable and/or primary sources, which don't come even close to meeting WP:GNG; meanwhile, a recurring part in a soap opera doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR. Previously draftified and moved back into main space by the author, so AfD it is. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Television, and South Africa. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although some of the sources are questionable, there is enough coverage in mainstream news to meet notability. The subject is a television presenter and actor[13], just like how a musician can be a one hit wonder. He is clearly notable and discussed in multiple RS, meaning he pass WP:GNG. A simple Google search is enough. TroyeMins (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Best I can find are articles about his graduation [14], which don't really offer much beyond reposting social media feeds and saying what happened. I don't find much sourcing otherwise... The sources used in the article don't seem to be RS per Cite Highlighter either, most being yellow, so average. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I removed some obvious puffery and was working through the refs looking for notability. I found none in the given refs or in before searches. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 03:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Knockout Pizza

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

I actually think this could be speedy-deleted as there is no real claim of importance. But since CherryPie94 has tagged the article with {{Sources exist}}, I believe it's best to discuss this deletion. My own search for references brings up the two restaurants' websites, social networks presence, Yelp, TripAdvisor, GrubHub and so on, but nothing that comes close to significant coverage from reliable third-party sources. In other words, it fails the WP:GNG test. Pichpich (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and California. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing showed up on my searches either Moritoriko (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable

Isoceles-sai (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of publications from Joseph Paul Forgas

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE, no encyclopaedic content. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Bibliographies, and Psychology. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly not encyclopedic content. Geschichte (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It looks like a non notable list of works that, I believe, fails NLIST. Nobody (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 1AmNobody24, and because we are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Python and the Holy Grail in popular culture

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

Most of this article is an assortment of pop culture references and random listings, which violates what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. There is some decent legacy at the top of the article, but the parent article (Monty Python and the Holy Grail) is at a decently fine page size (57,000 or so bytes), making a WP:SIZESPLIT unnecessary. While this film had a large legacy, the coverage on it does not appear to be so vast that a split from the parent article is needed and is better covered at the parent, per WP:NOPAGE. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Popular culture, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the filmmaking section to the main article and run away from the rest, which are all just trivial examples of "borrowing" things from the film. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with Clarityfiend that nothing outside the "Filmmaking" section is worth retaining, and I agree with Pokelego999 that it would be better to cover the relevant information at the parent article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. That being said, what exactly would we merge? The information in the "Financial legacy" subsection is already at Monty Python and the Holy Grail#Development, and the subsequent "Impact on television and filmmaking" subsection is pretty poor. I could maybe see using the cited "How Monty Python and the Holy Grail Influenced Film by Satirizing It" article from The Atlantic and possibly the cited "45 Years Ago: Monty Python and the Holy Grail Changes Comedy Forever" article from Ultimate Classic Rock (is that outlet WP:Reliable for this kind of content?), but in that case I wouldn't use the current content but rather start over from scratch in summarizing those sources. The rest of that subsection is either sourced to this article from Screen Rant (not a source we should be using here, see WP:RSP/VALNET), this article from The Daily Telegraph about the show Disenchantment that briefly mentions Monty Python and the Holy Grail as an inspiration, or completely unsourced. Even the best sources currently cited here are way below the quality I would expect could be found for this topic, so surely we should locate better sources and use those instead. As far as I can tell there is no need to keep the edit history for attribution (WP:CWW), and I don't think the title is worth keeping as a redirect. So I don't really see anything to WP:PRESERVE here and no other strong case for any particular WP:Alternative to deletion. Maybe I'm missing something, but at the moment I don't see why we would merge or redirect instead of simply deleting this. TompaDompa (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There's extra financing info here that isn't in the main article: specific amounts contributed and the other two label backers. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose, though I consider the exact figures to be minutiae and three record companies, including Charisma Records, the record label that had released Python's early comedy albums to be about as good as additionally naming Chrysalis Records and Island Records outright. These are details I wouldn't necessarily include if I were writing it from scratch. TompaDompa (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no preference on whether this article is redirected, deleted, or merged. Whatever consensus shall be on that, I'll go with it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Monty Python and the Holy Grail was popular culture. Is it not popular any more? ☺
I really do not understand why the article creator made this page in the first place. Nothing was split out of the main page. The article creator has not touched the main page at all. (The "see also" was wikignomed in by someone else.) It seems a total duplication of effort to no good end. Plus, a lot of the content here is things that "are similar to" MPATHG, a lot of which is highly suspect. Eric Idle was not the first person ever to say "Bring out your dead!", which a lot of this content seems to think to be the case. I agree with both Clarityfiend amd TompaDompa on what little there is to merge, and with the latter on perhaps working from scratch from better sources in any case.
Uncle G (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could merge what's well-referenced in this article into a new article named Cultural impact of Monty Python (based on similar articles like Cultural impact of Star Wars and Cultural impact of Dragon Ball); a Google search reveals more sources talking about the impact of the Pythons as a whole ([15], [16], [17]). -insert valid name here- (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There already is Monty Python#Cultural influence and legacy. Probably better to work on that rather than creating a new article. TompaDompa (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aero Fiesta Mexicana

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:NORG – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources passed WP:SIRS since none of them contained any significant coverage of the airline itself and only contained more or less passing/trivial mentions of the airline. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, and Mexico. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -more of a procedural vote because Im the article creator. But Im working at finding more sources. Jeanette, babe, join me at my fiesta Martin (aqui?) 20:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source that you recently added doesn't meet WP:SIRS in establishing the airline's notability as there's no significant coverage of the airline itself. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – More detailed source assessment:

Source assessment table
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
"Aviación Mexicana en Cifras 1993-2015" (PDF). Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 February 2022.		Only mentioned four times as "InterAmérica" in tables. No coverage of the airline itself at all.	✘ No
"Aerolíneas Extintas Mexicanas - Aeronotas ✈️".		Just a short and brief explanation of what the airline was. Part of a list of defunct airlines in Mexico.	✘ No
"Aero Fiesta Mexicana history from Americas, Mexico".	No sources cited for the information. The page of contributors doesn't inspire much confidence.	Barely any coverage of the airline itself.	✘ 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}}.

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - in the absense of coverage of RSes to establish N, List of defunct airlines of Mexico would be a plausible redirect target. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete source assessment table demonstrates GNG is not met. LibStar (talk) 06:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of villages near Peja

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

I do not think this article meets the notability required for a stand alone list (WP:NLIST), and the title is incredibly arbitrary - how near is near, exactly? Not notable for Wikipedia, + WP:NOTDIRECTORY. jolielover♥talk 17:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Kosovo. jolielover♥talk 17:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Near" refers to the villages inside of the municipality of the city. Peja mapping (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a Merge to Peja#Geography, if not District of Peja#Municipalities would be appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 20:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, i agree Peja mapping (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RAW artists

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

The subject of the article has no notability so fails WP:GNG and I can’t find any WP:SIGCOV. Quite a bit of the article is written in a promotional tone. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, Australia, Canada, Mexico, and United States of America. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of ship decommissionings in 1902

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

This whole series needs thorough checking, but let's start with this one. After more than 5 years, this "list" consists of one entry, for a ship that was "decommisioned" and "recommissioned" multiple times (basically, put into the reserve and taken out of the reserve again, or put into a shipyard for renovation), which is the reason that it is also the only entry in List of ship decommissionings in 1905. It is also listed in no less than 4 commissionings lists (1898, 1903, 1910, 1917), in one "launch" list (1892), and finally in the decommissioning list for 1926. That's one way to populate countless lists of course... Anyway, back to the one at hand, which seems to be a non-notable event (as it can happen many times for one ship) where, judging from the lack of population of the list, is no real interest to have these anyway. If kept, I suppose it should be reserved for final decommissionings only, which would make this at the moment an empty list. But as it stands, not a defining characteristic of the ship. Fram (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and Lists. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arunachaleswarar Temple, Walajabad

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

Completely fails notability requirements for places. A quick search yields pretty much no good sources for it. I tried (using google) Arunachaleswarar Temple, Walajabad" as one phrase. I also tried "Arunachaleswarar Temple" "Walajabad" as two phrases. I can't find anything that shows any form of notability. Gaismagorm (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Religion, Hinduism, India, and Tamil Nadu. Gaismagorm (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valarie Wilson

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

Non-notable former school board member and onetime statewide candidate in Georgia. Article was created during her 2014 campaign and promptly abandoned afterwards. No in-depth coverage, no reason for notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Education, and Georgia (U.S. state). Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Politicians. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither her former local political positions nor her unsuccessful run for state school superintendent pass WP:NPOL, and no other claim to notability is evident (neither in the article nor on searching). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She hasn't held any office that would satisfy WP:NPOL, but the article is not reliably sourced anywhere near well enough to credibly claim her as a special case of significantly greater notability than other school board trustees. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Local government official who doesn’t meet the criteria for NPOL#1 and NPOL#2. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 22:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one of the oldest and stringent standards is WP:POL, and in particular, school boards and superintendents are not notable, absent something unusual like Lewis Powell, Jr.. Bearian (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Church of Lucifer

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable fringe organization. Lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. There is a small quantity of local media coverage, but it seems to be mainly about local events. Some hits on Google books, but those that are not self-published works refer to an older group of the same name during the 1960s, not this 21-century church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyerise (talk • contribs) 15:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Paganism, and Texas. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For those wondering about the article deleted by the prior AFD discussion, as I was: Yes, it's the same subject, but the article is different, and also differently sourced. It's also a very similar nomination rationale, which is only to be expected if circumstances with available sourcing have not changed. Uncle G (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article of Luciferianism and Michael W. Ford mention this group. The Luciferian group in question has garnered not only local but also national media attention on two distinct occasions: (1) the inauguration of their Satanic church in Texas, which incited significant local protests from Christians, resulting in a modicum of national coverage; and (2) the conversion of one of their prominent leaders to Christianity, a development that has been extensively publicized by a Christian ministry with which he is affiliated. So, the article has some value historically. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in the article all appear to be Houston-local. Please list the in-depth national coverage you assert exists. Also under (2), we can't use affiliated sources, are there third-party sources covering that? If not, it's irrelevant. Also please note that the above editor is the recreator of the deleted article. Skyerise (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the fact that other articles include cited content about the subject does not support it being notable enough for a standalone article, so that's not a valid argument against deletion. Skyerise (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are several sources covered by international media like CBN, ABC etc. Also there's The Huffington Post. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the ABC citation is to the local Houston station page. That doesn't mean the coverage was national. And the HuffPost article adds nothing new, it simply summarizes the local coverage and links to it. This is all reporting on an event, specifically the Christian protest against the church, not in-depth coverage of the organization itself. Skyerise (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Read (historian)

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

This came originally from a discussion on the talk page of WP:AfD: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Charles_Read_(historian) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhinchey (talk • contribs) 15:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Charles Read is not notable generally nor as an academic. If at some point he becomes notable, most of what's in this article won't be relevant, because it's pretty much all small potatoes awards, and one interview in a newspaper.

He clearly doesn't meet [WP:GNG]; googling him shows his employee bio and his LinkedIn page and little else. He also does not meet any of the criteria of WP:Notability (academics). Going through all the academics criteria here:

No one claims he significantly impacted his field
No notable awards: the awards listed are (1) an award for dissertations, (2) an award for new researchers, (3) the T. S. Ashton Prize, worth only £1,500 and none of whose winners (except this one) have Wikipedia pages, and (4) an unnamed "prestigious prize at MIT" - but MIT doesn't seem to have his name on any of their webpages.
Not an elected member of any "highly selective and prestigious" societies. His highest listed academic positions are pretty common -- he's one of 60-odd current fellows at Corpus Christi College
There's no evidence I can find that his work has had a significant impact on higher education
He's not been a chair or distinguished professor
He's not had any highest-level positions anywhere
The extent of his impact outside academia is being mentioned in a news article about Liz because he sent an unsolicited paper that the government ignored
He's not led any major academic journal

Delete because he doesn't meet any WP:N. nhinchey (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 10:25, 13 March 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) 18:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Economics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. GrexHarmony (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kota Ishida

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

Played twice professionally [18] before retiring in 2021. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With 46 minutes played in the J2 League, he falls far outside of WP:SPORTCRIT. The Japanese Wikipedia article gives no indication of notability either. Geschichte (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimír Koník

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

Football manager who spent managing lower league teams without evidence of meeting WP:GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the nomination statement is not accurate. He managed Inter, Senica and Nitra in the highest league. He also seems like a noteworthy football pundit who often finds himself in the media for this and that opinion. There is quite much coverage in many different outlets, in part about him and in part about debates he is embroiled in, including but not limited to [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] Geschichte (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Geschichte. Svartner (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Geschichte. – RossEvans19 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources above. Canary757 (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Geschichte. RolandSimon (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Five Nights At Gumball's

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

Disputed draftify. This is a fan adaptation of a video game/TV series. Can't find any independent or reliable source reviews of the game itself, proposing delete. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Video games. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is just a random FNAF fangame. It's not going to meet WP:GNG. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Worked with the draft's author and there is no indication it meets GNG. qcne (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to tell you that unfortunately many articles are published at once and there is hardly any time to review, and the bad articles remain, I just want to say that there are articles that are worse.

Mine isn't finished yet, there's still the characters section, I need a second chance and I still have one section left to improve, there are articles that have the warning of unreliable sources and are worse than mine, please (⁠´⁠;⁠︵⁠;⁠`⁠) Emilia delmonte (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again @Emilia delmonte. Was there anything about our previous discussions you didn't understand? I think I made it fairly clear what our criteria were. qcne (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also discussed at User talk:Bobby Cohn § Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Five Nights At Gumball's. —Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Emilia delmonte, what people are really looking for is some hint that this game has been reviewed or written about by a professional writer. That's how we decide if something is important enough for wikipedia. If you can find a link to a review or article by a professional writer, that would probably be enough to save this wikipedia article.

It's not about quality, or how finished it is. The quality is actually fine (Good job.), and we know you'd be able to finish it. The problem is the notability guidelines. ApLundell (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the quality is not bad. However, is the subject notable enough to be reviewed by independent, reliable sources that significantly cover the subject? Conyo14 (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify. This fan game has not been discussed in wider sources, unlike games such as Undertale Yellow or Sonic Robo Blast 2. @Emilia delmonte: I encourage you to create an article on this game on an alternative outlet such as TV Tropes, Fandom, or Miraheze. -insert valid name here- (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:GNG. The author is trying to claim WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a rationale. Nah, that does not fly by. Fangames rarely get full articles. Conyo14 (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spiro (company)

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

The sources online and within the page don't provide notabilty as NCORP requires. Moslty trivial coverage, trades. 89KimberlyRoad (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Kenya. Shellwood (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The article clearly meets WP:CORP. There are multiple significant independent sources. Jeune Afrique is the biggest and most reliable international source in Africa ("most widely read pan African magazine" on their wiki page). The Africa Report is a qualitative source. La Tribune is a leading French weekly financial newspaper. Radio France Internationale is the website of "one of the most-listened-to international radio stations in the world" as we can read on the wiki page. BusinessDay (Nigeria) (which I just added) is a prominent Newspaper in Nigeria. The Standard (Kenya)(which I just added) is, according to its wiki "one of the largest newspapers in Kenya with a 48% market share". The Sun (Nigeria) (which I just added) according to his wiki "highest-selling newspaper in Nigeria". This Day and African Business (Which I just added) are also worth mentioning. Those sources are all centered on Spiro (not just mentions), several have a strong reputation for independence, and there is significant coverage.Bibamad (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a CNN article showing in-depth coverage of the company; there are many more, it's clearly notable. The article could do with some more detail but there are plenty of sources to draw this from. JeffUK 15:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Sicotte-Levesque

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

Non-notable bio, lack of sources about the subject herself. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has founded an impactful media organsiation, for which she has been awarded a national honour and also produced a film. ash (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Radio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decision Analyst (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Has been nominated for PROD twice. Constant promotional issues. Imcdc Contact 12:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Texas. Imcdc Contact 12:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Leaving aside the repeated addition-removal of promo text, and the 2016 and 2019 PRODs, searches do not find the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability (either for Decision Analyst or the associated Symmetric Sampling). AllyD (talk) 17:35, 4 March 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 14:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Dunst (singer)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/William Dunst (singer)

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

Zero reliable sources with any depth of coverage; just vanity press sites and other PR stuff. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Theatre, Fashion, and Hungary. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article lacks reliable, in-depth sources and appears to be based on vanity press and promotional material, failing WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. You can't have significant coverage without reliable sources. The subject is only 17 years old, so this is just too soon. Bearian (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter (Indian beer)

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

The parent company might satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria for companies, but this beer brand does not. The sources do not provide sufficient substantial coverage of this brand required to satisfy ORGCRIT. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Products, and Madhya Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Were there a page for Som Distilleries, I would be inclined to merge the content into that page. As there is not, I would go for Delete per nom. nf utvol (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://medium.com/@somindia/amazing-attributes-of-the-hunter-strongest-beer-in-india-d1680783c6dd

https://untappd.com/b/som-distilleries-and-breweries-hunter-super-strong-premium-beer/495061

it is one of highest selling beers in india

https://www.angelone.in/news/hunter-dominates-strong-beer-sales-in-delhi-for-may-2023 Baba199209 (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://medium.com/@somindia/amazing-attributes-of-the-hunter-strongest-beer-in-india-d1680783c6dd

https://untappd.com/b/som-distilleries-and-breweries-hunter-super-strong-premium-beer/495061

it is one of highest selling beers in india

https://www.angelone.in/news/hunter-dominates-strong-beer-sales-in-delhi-for-may-2023

Baba199209 (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of those contribute to notability (a press release on sales, a self-published Medium article, and a user-generated Untappd entry). See WP:RS. nf utvol (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Holland (politician)

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

WP:BLP of a local politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, councillors at the borough level are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of significant reliable source coverage about their work that enables us to write a substantial article about their political impact -- but not a single one of the 22 footnotes here represents proper third-party coverage about Claire Holland in media of record: 17 of them are primary sources that are not support for notability (e.g. the self-published websites of the council she serves on and/or her political party); three more completely fail to mention Claire Holland's name at all, and instead are here just to tangentially verify stray facts about other people; and the remaining two come from a minor community hyperlocal WordPress blog rather than a reliable or WP:GNG-worthy media outlet.
Simply existing as a borough councillor is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt the councillor from having to pass GNG on significantly better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Holland isn't just a borough councillor. She's also (i) the head of the council, ie what in other cities with various administrative centres might be a mayor (ii) chair of the cross-council association for all of London, and (iii) a member of the executive committee for the UK Labour Party. The article appears to (now?) have sufficient reputable secondary sources. (There also appeared to be additional references to her in the Guardian and the Evening Standard).ash (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being head of the council still isn't a notability freebie. A head of a borough council, just the same as any other borough councillor, still has to pass WP:NPOL #2 on a lot more reliable source coverage about her work, supporting a lot more substance about the impact of her work, than this article is showing at all. Even mayors don't get instant notability freebies just for being mayors if they haven't been shown to pass NPOL #2, so why would a councillor get more leeway than a mayor does? Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She's also the chair of the cross-council association for all of London, a member of the executive committee for the UK Labour Party, and a spokesman for the Local Government Association. ash (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Less notable people: Ros Jones, Brenda Dacres, Peter Taylor (mayor)

I think these Mayors are less notable than Cllr Claire Holland, who has national coverage from The Guardian, The BBC, The Independent and The Standard and represents all 32 London Boroughs at London Councils as well as being a member of the Nation Executive Committee of the The Labour Party, where key leadership decisions are made. Diogo Costa (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and England. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Holland isn't just a local councillor, she is Chair of London Councils which represents all local authorities in London including The City, she sits on the highest body of the national British Labour Party, the National Executive Committee. She was also invited by the British Deputy Prime Minister to be part of the Local Government Leaders' Council. She has been mentioned in newspapers and online articles from the Guardian and the BBC. Diogo Costa (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Holland, in her capacity has leader of the Council, has met with notable figures such as Prince William. This being made news into news outlets such as "The Independent" or "Yahoo News UK". GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Bearcat and the citations presented are not enough Yolandagonzales (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citations of the UK's reputable sources such as The Guardian, The BBC, The Independent and The Standard isn't enough? Diogo Costa (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Local politician, does not meet WP:NPOL. And meeting Prince William doesn't make her notable. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe she meets the following criteria: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.

Major London political figure, with significant press coverage. Diogo Costa (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep:~~

Meets WP:NPOL Criteria – Holland’s role as Chair of London Councils extends beyond a typical local councillor. London Councils represents all 32 boroughs plus the City of London, influencing policies affecting millions. This is a significant leadership role at a regional level, aligning with WP:NPOL’s recognition of politicians who hold "substantial power at a national or sub-national level."

National Influence & Recognition – As a member of the Labour Party's National Executive Committee (NEC), she holds a position that helps shape the policies of one of the UK's two major political parties. This goes beyond local politics and directly influences national-level decision-making, reinforcing her notability.

Independent Reliable Coverage – Holland has been covered by respected national and international media outlets like The Guardian, BBC, The Independent, and Yahoo News UK. These sources are independent and reliable, providing evidence of sustained media attention, which satisfies Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines (WP:GNG).

Invited by the Deputy Prime Minister – Her inclusion in the UK government’s Local Government Leaders’ Council highlights her political significance at a national level, demonstrating recognition by senior government figures beyond just the Labour Party.

Comparable Politicians Have Pages – Other council leaders with similar levels of influence have Wikipedia pages, such as Ros Jones, Rokhsana Fiaz, and Paul Dennett. Consistency in Wikipedia’s application of WP:NPOL would suggest that Holland’s role merits inclusion as well.

Public Engagement with National Figures – Her meetings with prominent figures, including Prince William, being reported in major news outlets, further indicate that she has a public profile beyond her borough.

Clare Holland is not just a local politician but a significant political figure with influence across London and within the national Labour Party. Her leadership role, media presence, and recognition by high-level government officials meet Wikipedia’s criteria for notability, making her page well-justified. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC) Duplicate !vote stricken. Owen× ☎ 13:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I trust if you're going to delete Holland, you'll also delete Ros Jones, Brenda Dacres, Chris Cooke, Rokhsana Fiaz, Paul Dennett, and Peter Taylor too? ash (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want them deleted, please open a nomination request and we'll review them. Each will be evaluated as we are doing for this article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While "Being head of the council still isn't a notability freebie" is a reasonable opinion to hold, it doesn't follow that the article must be deleted; indeed WP:INVALIDBIO suggests redirecting as an option - although that talks about relationships with people, I don't see why it can't also hold for relationships with organisations and political bodies. Considering redirecting as an alternative to deletion, there are multiple possible targets, including primarily London Councils and National Executive Committee (Labour Party). Since there's no preferred redirect target, it implies the article should be kept as a standalone entry. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow responses to Ritchie333's argument/suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The aforegiven claims that this person has national coverage from The Guardian, The BBC, The Independent and The Standard and has been covered by respected national and international media outlets like The Guardian, BBC, The Independent turn out to be disingenuous. The Williams 2017 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWilliams2017 (help) and the Walker 2021 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWalker2021 (help) sources from The Guardian turn out to be a mention in a list of people and no mention at all, respectively. The Mendonça & Stanley 2025 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMendonçaStanley2025 (help) source from the BBC turns out to be a quote on a political issue said by this person, not something about this person. The Jones 2023 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFJones2023 (help) source from The Independent has William, Prince of Wales sitting in a room with a group including this person. And both of the Burford 2024 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBurford2024 (help) articles from The Standard turn out to again be political-topic quotes by this person rather than stuff about this person. Checking more of the sources reveals more of the same. The only halfway decent source in the lot is Cobb 2024 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCobb2024 (help) and even that does not go into detail on this person's career and give anything like support for a biography of this person's life and works.
This biography has been synthesized from inferences made from list mentions and quote attributions and some obvious warmed-over press releases like Goodwin 2024. That's not adequate sourcing for a biographical article in an encyclopaedia, and I do not support keeping a badly sourced synthetic biography, where the person has actually not had xyr life and works covered in sources, just because we cannot think of a redirect. That's madness, and totally contrary to 22 years and 9 days of policy. DiogoTheCoder and GrandDukeMarcelo your professed standards of biographical sourcing and false representations of sources are appalling. Shape up! Delete.
Uncle G (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_kind.
- If thats the case, then we should delete the other articles referring to English Mayors, which have even less sources. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only if they too are synthetic like this, which is not a given. Biographies of living persons are based upon reliable and in-depth sourcing, no ifs, no buts, no maybes. There's no if-A-gets-an-article-so-should-B, neither is there the reverse, in deletion policy. Whether a mayor gets a biographical article is wholly dependent from the sourcing available for a biography, which is not going to be the same for everyone. For more details, see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?. Uncle G (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the concerns raised about sourcing, and as someone newer to Wikipedia editing, I’m keen to understand and follow the best practices for biographical articles. However, I think some important context is missing here.
1. Politicians are often quoted rather than profiled – This is especially true for local government figures, where coverage tends to focus on their statements and decisions rather than in-depth biographies. This does not mean they are not notable, especially when they hold a significant office within English local government.
2. Comparative treatment of similar articles – As pointed out earlier in this discussion, other articles on local authority leaders exist with fewer or similarly structured sources, yet they are not nominated for deletion. Consistency in application of notability guidelines is important.
3. The sources do confirm a public role – While some sources may primarily include quotes, they do establish that the subject is a known figure in their field. The BBC, Guardian, Independent, and Standard all acknowledging the individual suggests they meet the Wikipedia:Notability, even if the coverage isn’t a detailed career retrospective.
4. Improving rather than deleting – If the concern is about the depth of the coverage, a discussion on how to improve sourcing and structure would be more productive than outright deletion. Perhaps there are additional sources that haven’t been considered yet.
I’m open to constructive suggestions on strengthening the article, but I do think outright deletion would be disproportionate given the precedent of similar articles Diogo Costa (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You definitely should be less open to looking like an LLM. ☺ Shape up; stop doing LLM-style arguments (Beware that LLMs spout nonsense.); read policy on content, deletion, sourcing, and notability; and put it into practice, especially for biographies of living persons (but ideally everywhere). Uncle G (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Be Kind https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_kind and do not make personal attacks Wikipedia:No personal attacks GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  GrandDukeMarcelo, I don't see any personal attacks or civility violations here. Uncle G is giving you useful tips on how to get your point across effectively on content discussion pages like this one. Ignore those tips at your peril. Responding with repeated links to a policy page on Simple English Wikipedia doesn't help your case here. Also, please limit yourself to one !vote per AfD. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 17:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Saying things like "Shape up" or "Your are looking like an LLM" or "your professed standards of biographical sourcing and false representations of sources are appalling." are highly problematic and border the realm of online Bullying and passive-aggressiveness. I hope this is retracted. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I don’t think it’s personal attacks, but it’s quite an aggressive tone, the last sentence:
  
  your professed standards of biographical sourcing and false representations of sources are appalling. Shape up!
  
  I don’t think this is constructive feedback. Diogo Costa (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  ~~Keep:~~ Claire Holland Meets Wikipedia’s Notability Guidelines for Politicians
  
  This article should be retained and improved upon because Claire Holland meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for politicians and fulfills the general notability guidelines (GNG).
  
  1. Notability of Politicians WP:POLITICIAN
  
  According to Wikipedia:
  
  “Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or first-level sub-national office, or have been members of a national legislature, are presumed to be notable.”
  
  Claire Holland has been the Leader of Lambeth Council since 2021, which governs a major London borough with over 300,000 residents.
  
  She was elected Chair of London Councils in 2024, a role that coordinates policies across all London boroughs.
  
  In 2024, she joined the Labour Party’s National Executive Committee, a governing body of the UK's main opposition party.
  
  Since the Leader of a major local authority in the UK is a first-level sub-national office, Holland qualifies under WP:POLITICIAN.
  
  2. General Notability Guidelines WP:GNG
  
  Wikipedia requires:
  
  “Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.”
  
  Claire Holland has been covered in major national and regional publications, including:
  
  The Guardian
  
  BBC News
  
  The Evening Standard
  
  Local Government Chronicle
  
  These sources demonstrate significant and independent coverage, meeting WP:GNG.
  
  3. Verifiability and Reliable Sources WP:V & WP:RS
  
  Wikipedia states:
  
  “Articles should be based on reliable, published sources.”
  
  Holland's career is documented in reliable news sources, ensuring the article meets WP:V and WP:RS requirements.
  
  Conclusion
  
  Holland holds a high-level political position WP:POLITICIAN.
  
  She has received independent coverage WP:GNG.
  
  The article is verifiable with reliable sources WP:V & WP:RS.
  
  This page should not be deleted and should be improved with additional sources if necessary. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I looked at the sources, and although most of them are reliable, none provide WP:SIGCOV. Per Uncle G, this seems disingenuous. There's not enough coverage to support a standalone article and nowhere to redirect, so I think delete is the best option.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I listed two suitable articles above to redirect to. What's the problem with both of them? Indeed, Uncle G's essay, quoted above, also says "That a subject is non-notable does not mean that verifiable information about a subject should be excluded from Wikipedia." In my view, Claire Holland is as notable as Danny Beales (AfD) was before he was elected as an MP. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then what did you mean by keeping the article because there's no redirect target? Speaking only for myself, I definitely cannot agree with that outcome. If there's anything that the Seigenthaler incident taught, it is that biographies of politicians should be held to the highest standards. I think that you should explain to us why you thought that neither target cut the mustard. ☺ I trust your evaluation that neither target was good. I can see this person's name on both pages, badly wikilinked on one, but there are no redirects for the other namechecked people there, and presumably the search tool is good enough for finding them nonetheless. Special:Search/Anthony Okereke for example. Uncle G (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I meant myself clear, I meant the preferred redirect target was ambiguous, and also that I think this article is a very marginal case for deletion. Regarding BLPs, the content of this article is far better than some things I have encountered. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Kilani

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

Declined prod. Source was added https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-los-angeles-times-liberian-runner-sh/166592209/ ~~which doesn't appear to name this person~~. Lacking SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Jordan. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, he exists [28]. That's about the extent of what I find, there are three other sources in Gnewspapers that just give race results. We don't have enough to meet GNG Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Positively fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Added source is expressly not about him. I know that a certain user will come around here to claim that it is, but it is not. Kilani had unusually slow PBs per Olympedia, literal minutes behind the world elite, so no reason to believe that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES either - which a certain user will arrive to claim as well. Geschichte (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on below provided sources. See collapsed for previous rationale.

Extended content

Keep with great respect to the above !voters' views and contributions, this is only a disagreement about policy. I do believe in using WP:NEXIST very sparingly, meaning I don't think it applies to 99%+ of articles on-wiki. But the simple fact is that that Kilani is a clear case where it applies:
1. . Is there enough WP:V content on Kilani to construct a stub? Yes, the article as written only consists of verified content from WP:RS. So the only issue is notability, not verifiability.
2. . Has Kilani done something that would indicate coverage exists? Yes, Kilani was the best long-distance track runner from his country of millions of people in the 1970s, as evidenced by the fact that he was the only such Jordanian athlete to qualify for the 1984 Olympics. Standards of achievement for athletics have always been specific to regions and sub-groups and not only universal. Of course a universal standard also exists, but for the same reason Sherman Guity is notable despite "pedestrian" sprint times, what matters is not whether Kilani did or WP:DIDNOTWIN but whether he was notable for his accomplishments in a large enough sub-group.
3. . Have we searched relevant archives? Do we even have access to them? This is a resounding no. We know that newspapers and periodicals were widespread in Jordan at the time. But where are the archives? A good start would be searching under the subject's native name Arabic: باسل كيلاني. Once we have those archives, it shouldn't take much, we'd expect coverage from the Olympics to exist on the first sports or news page on the day of Kilani's competitions. But we don't.

Lastly I'll just say that there is a wording issue in the nominating statement, of course "which doesn't appear to name this person" is incorrect because the subject is mentioned in the first sentence of the article. Yes, it's only a mention, meaning it serves to fulfill WP:V but not WP:N – hence why NEXIST is necessary here. --Habst (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But we still have no sources, "Trust me some exist" isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b, I have great respect for your edits, but I think you are falling trap to a common misconception about Wikipedia P&G – yes, NEXISTS can be invoked without a specific URL or page number of a citation, and there is some responsibility to search for sources before deletion even if they aren't readily available online. See the closing admin comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Maher Abbas: ... I'm not typically impressed by the "there must be sources" genre of argument, BeanieFan11's is unusually solid: it is true that not a single participant has reported searching Lebanese newspapers (where we'd expect to find the most coverage) and finding nothing. Those points all also apply to this AfD.

A lot of people think that if you look for sources online and can't find any, that's sufficient grounds to delete an article. And in 99% of cases that may be true, but Wikipedia P&G are more nuanced than that. --Habst (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an inclusionist, but without proper sourcing, we can't presume anything. This individual is most certainly notable, but we have nothing to prove that notability. The best source for media in that part of the world that we can access would be the BnF Gallica, simply for the shared language, [29] but there are no sources to be found. A Lebanese athlete would get some mention in the Francophone press if they were this notable, but there isn't any. Oaktree b (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas was Lebanese but Kilani (this AfD subject) is Jordanian, so I don't think a French newspaper would suffice. List of newspapers in Jordan would be a good start – those in the table that would have existed during Kilani's prime would be The Jordan Times, Al Liwaa, Al Ra'i, and Ad-Dustour. To my knowledge, although we know that they existed in the 80s, none have searchable archives from that time, meaning we would need to do some digging like finding old issues. --Habst (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment striked out text, but regardless the added source is a single mention and not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage here. I get a very choppy translation that says something like:

Basil Al-Kilani, the athlete
1 The unknown who did not participate in the tournament A year ago, he did not have a share 7 0 of the competitions that 0 .. Igham since a year for the national electors after he insisted on continuing training. With determination and deliberation .. until he surprised everyone and the champions

The previous one on the track, so Khalil

And Ham to the constellation in the 00.0 km race And the situation worsened with him, so he finished third, and I think Some people thought it was a stroke of luck, but he confirmed 0 The second day of the tournament 3 His ability to follow 0 The champions in the 101 km race, and he almost 3 won it if it were not for his lack of resourcefulness and experience He finished second and is now developing
5 An organized development.

BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also get from this:

Student Basil Kilani: One of the champions of the cross-country race
What are the impressions that.
Bear about the sports movement inside the college
He said at the beginning of the year there was no extra interest in athletes and the dean of the college promised that there were privileges for athletes and that they would be exempted from some of the fees or reduced, but one day we were surprised by the dean’s registrar taking us out of the classes and demanding that we pay the full fee.
There was one teacher in the college, which was not enough to train the teams, but finally the college received two sports coaches who led the teams to victory and the college director became the first supporter of sports and athletes

BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then Sawt Alshaab has a decent article discussing him (and some other Jordan 1984 Olympians) here (Google is not good at translating this stuff...):

In response to what was reported by sports circles and newspapers about our athletics team that represented Jordan in the Los Angeles Olympics, I would like to present a clearer and more detailed picture of this drowned(?) person ... Basil Kilani competed in the 1000[0]m race. He achieved Al-Kilani set a new Jordanian record in the 30.42 1000[0]m race, completing the distance in 30 minutes, thus breaking his previous record of 32.02 minutes by one minute and twenty seconds.
An hour. He came in fifteenth place with a time of 19/2014 and there are many like him ... This is an achievement in a short period of time that is almost unexpected. He participated in the 5000m race, which started at a speed higher than what is required for our player, and he covered the first kilometer in 2.47 minutes and the second kilometer in 2.44 minutes, which is close to his maximum speed time, which was a technical mistake for the player, and thus he lost his record achieved in Germany by 15 seconds.
...
However, we must take into consideration all aspects of the shortage in numbers and capabilities, from technical and other aspects, so that we can achieve better accomplishments in the future...

huge blockquote redacted somewhat by asilvering (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11, please don't drop such huge blockquotes onto Wikipedia, even in an AfD, for copyvio reasons. Thanks! -- asilvering (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just trying to allow others to be able to read the text, which is entirely in another language, to show its extent for sigcov. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I think the coverage we have is just enough for GNG/NBASIC given the circumstances; I feel like if we did better searches we'd find more coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per BeanieFan11 Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Let give time for interested editors by draftifying the page and so they may show the subject's notability with additional references through time.Instant History (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, the subject lacks WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. He also fails WP:GNG. I don't think the WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument holds up either - if they WP:EXIST, then someone should find them and update the article accordingly.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is this not sigcov? Also, the NEXIST argument is that no one has looked at Jordanian newspaper archives, only the very limited archive.org collection. I.e. a large number of the newspapers of the time that are likely to have covered him are inaccessible to us. Regardless of that though, I think what's been presented is enough to build an WP:NBASIC-compliant article... BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that per WP:NEXIST, the onus of proof of the existence of sources rests on those claiming it exists: once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per the new coverage by User:BeanieFan11, an NEXIST argument isn't necessary any more, so I struck the above rationale and changed it to keep on those merits. I agree that the info we have now is enough for a BASIC-compliant article. --Habst (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of the relisting comment. We found coverage sufficient for notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Highest Village in Lebanon

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

Completely unsourced article. No other examples of articles like this. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia, Middle East, and Lebanon. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bekaa Kafra, as an ATD and what the article's title is referring to; this article as-is can't answer the question properly. Nathannah • 📮 17:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bekaa Kafra per Nathannah. Article consists mainly of WP:OR. -insert valid name here- (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Factoriangular number

AfDs for this article:

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

This is apparently the same page as an article of the same title that was deleted in 2017. It seems that the main difference with the deleted version is that citations to predatory journals have been added. This is not sufficient to insure WP:notability, and the reasons for the first deletion remain all valid. D.Lazard (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm the author of this article. I've added some more recent sources just now. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 17:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The previous article had five sources all published in bad journals (on Beall's list). The current article [30] has nine sources, of which six appear to be published in bad journals (not indexed in MathSciNet). The three exceptions are Rayaguru, Ruiz (actually should be Gomez Ruiz), and Luca "Pell Factoriangular Numbers". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If there are 3 good sources, that seems plenty for an otherwise non-controversial subject. JeffUK 15:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've removed the "bad" sources, leaving the 3 "good" ones. If those are as it seems sufficient to prove notability, the article has to be kept, or perhaps merged. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as currently stubified. Three is the magic number, pardon the pun, for WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xandra Pohl

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

Subject does not meet basic criteria for WP:N; extremely minor celebrity with no significant contribution to their field. References include subject’s own social media accounts that do not meet WP:RS. Subject has not won critical attention for their work or been honored with any significant industry awards. Volcom95 (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep (Article creator) She meets the basic criteria for notability through sources like this solid Cincinnati Enquirer profile. None of the nominator's reasons are based in deletion policy. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 16:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A single article does not meet the definition of "significant coverage" as detailed in WP:GNG. Volcom95 (talk) Volcom95 (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hence "sources like". Also not what sigcov means. Plenty of other solid articles including E! profile and a chunk of this Rolling Stone piece ("does not need to be the main topic of the source material"), Hameltion (talk | contribs) 22:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The author had reliable sources in the article, but given the fact that there are other, even more reliable sources out there on the subject, it seems to me that this is a case of an article simply needing to be further developed. I will spend some time tomorrow on strengthening it. This article was hastily nominated by a user who resorted to false accusations & threats against users who were doing their due diligence in order to provide a genuine opinion about whether or not the article should remain on Wikipedia. It is clear that the subject has satisfied the notability requirement. None of the nominators reasons for nominating are valid.

Brickto (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Strong Keep - She made the Forbes 30 under 30 list for music. That is no small feat. —— Comment: Reason Keep to Strong Keep change: nominator isn’t paying enough attention to the things they are arguing, and likely didn’t attempt to research the subject before initiating an AfD.

Brickto (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that you and user:Hameltion both have edits on the Peter Mangione article? Seems like an odd coincidence. Care to explain here or should I just file a WP:SPI?? Volcom95 (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Volcom95 I am switching my vote to Strong Keep, because clearly the nominator isn’t observant enough to notice that I edited the Peter Mangione article because I nominated it for deletion, and instead resorts to threats and accusing me and the author of sockpuppetry. Brickto (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is also not a thing we use to recognize notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:5P5, Wikipedia has no firm rules. A selection by Forbes, a reliable and prestigious outlet, for their 30 under 30 list is notable. On top of that, the subject is mentioned plenty in other reliable sources as more than just a passing mention. Did anyone bother to search the woman up or are you just trying to get this persons article deleted for no reason? Brickto (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it shows some notability, but it's not a RS alone. I still don't see enough RS. I looked below for sourcing as explained, please read my comments further down. Why would I want to delete this for no reason? I have better things to do with my time than waste it on wikipedia for no reason; I'm here with a purpose. My comment below says she might be notable in the future, we just don't have enough at this time to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: TOOSOON, the Cincinnati Inquirer piece is fine. The Sports Illustrated seems to be from the Swimsuit edition of the website, I'm wondering if it's as notable as the main SI site. We'd need a few more RS to cover this person before we could consider an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, coverage is about a swimsuit line, Dancing with the Stars and her relationships. They could help fill in an article, but aren't indications of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The SI piece is reliable but not really independent, but the other sources I linked above are sound. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 22:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b Are you aware that the swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated is one of the most prestigious covers that a model can be featured on? Because it seems like you think that is somehow less notable in some way. On the contrary, it makes it more notable. She was named the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Rookie of 2024 for her debut in the 60th Anniversary Edition of the swimsuit issue. 60 years that specific issue of the magazine has been being printed.

Regardless of where you stand on the topic, there is no overstating the importance and prestige that’s associated with being featured as the cover model for Sports Illustrated’s annual swimsuit edition. Indeed, there are magazines and websites dedicated to covering the topic. What began as a short photo spread featuring women in bathing suits in the early 1960s has since grown into one of the most prestigious fashion shoots in the world today, one that has is seen as THE fashion issue which the world’s top models and celebrities turn to for beachwear.
- AS USA
Brickto (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know what the swimsuit edition is, this appears to be a "lifestyle" website, feels more promotional. The website is actually titles SI Lifestyle, of which this swimsuit tab seems to be a small section at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So we have a Cincinnati Inquirer article, a 30 under 30 list and an SI swimsuit article, that's what we're using for notability? These are hardly enough. We usually need three decent sources for AfD; I've count these as maybe 1 1/2 sources. The Under 30 list is rather short. The SI swimsuit thing is iffy per the discussion above. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b

Cincinnati Enquirer, People, New York Post, Rolling Stone, Sports Illustrated, The US Sun, Page Six, Forbes, Her Campus, E!, OutKick, MSN, TMZ, TheWrap, Times of India, WLWT, EssentiallySports

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/entertainment/music/2025/02/11/xandra-cincinnati-kid-now-taking-over-dj-industry/77260013007/

https://www.hercampus.com/culture/xandra-pohl-tiktok-being-comfortable-alone-interview/

https://www.forbes.com/profile/xandra-pohl/

https://www.eonline.com/news/1407776/dancing-with-the-stars-danny-amendola-sets-record-straight-on-xandra-pohl-dating-rumors

https://www.eonline.com/news/1407492/xandra-pohl-fuels-danny-amendola-dating-rumors-at-dancing-with-the-stars-taping

https://www.outkick.com/culture/si-swimsuit-model-xandra-pohl-still-supports-o-3-bengals-jj-squat-ladies

https://www.outkick.com/culture/xandra-pohl-comes-out-jungle-2025-si-swimsuit-issue-clay-has-flu-275-gallon-firebox

https://people.com/all-about-danny-amendola-xandra-pohl-relationship-8714665

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/recaps/are-danny-amendola-and-xandra-pohl-dating-a-dwts-backstage-video-spills-the-tea/ar-AA1uTaAV

https://amp.tmz.com/2024/09/18/xandra-pohl-supports-danny-amendola-dwts/

https://www.thewrap.com/xandra-fandom-new-york-comic-con-party/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbespr/2024/12/03/forbes-announces-30-under-30-class-of-2025-spotlighting-young-entrepreneurs-and-innovators-who-are-disrupting-industries-and-making-an-impact-globally/

https://lifestyle.si.com/fashion-beauty/our-favorite-pieces-from-xandra-pohl-s-new-jewelry-collab-with-electric-picks-01j18r6b77j7

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/nfl/danny-amendola-shuts-down-dating-rumors-no-xandra-is-a-great-friend-of-mine/amp_articleshow/113773972.cms

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/tiktok-influencer-dj-1235133233/

https://www.wlwt.com/article/forbes-30-under-30-list-xandra-cincinnati/63084262

https://www.essentiallysports.com/nfl-active-news-has-louis-rees-zammit-broken-up-with-girlfriend-xandra-pohl-si-models-danny-amendola-move-sparks-speculation/

https://lifestyle.si.com/news/xandra-pohl-makes-her-debut-in-the-60th-anniversary-issue-of-si-swimsuit-01hw5kjxjbmc

https://nypost.com/2024/06/20/sports/dave-portnoy-throws-fuel-on-xandra-pohl-danny-amendola-dating-rumors/

https://nypost.com/2024/05/17/sports/si-swimsuit-model-xandra-pohl-stirs-dating-buzz-with-chiefs-player-after-public-breakup/

https://www.the-sun.com/sport/11652416/xandra-pohl-sports-illustrated-model-olivia-dunne-danny-amendola/

https://people.com/tiktoker-xandra-pohl-named-sports-illustrated-swimsuit-2024-rookie-see-the-debut-photos-8638269

https://pagesix.com/video/model-and-dj-alexandra-pohl-answers-burning-questions-in-confession-cube/
I don’t know about your love life, but I’d imagine it’s not the topic of any articles at the New York Post. If you can’t be bothered to even Google someone, why are you taking the time to argue for the deletion of their article? That’s careless & destructive to the encyclopedia. Hameltion has shown on other AfD discussions regarding articles that they have written that they are more than willing to admit when the nomination has merit. Because they are a good editor & they care about the encyclopedia. That being said, their speedy keep vote was 100% valid, and this nomination is a joke. The nominator is threatening people in the discussion, and the only other delete vote can’t take the time to Google the subject. Do better. Brickto (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think what we have ourselves here is a perfect example of a situation where a Wikipedia article is not a commodity but rather a necessity. If people are having trouble finding these, very obviously notable and prestigious, articles about the subject — then that is where Wikipedia comes in and consolidates them. This makes the information much more accessible to the general public, and it is the very reason this website was started in the first place.
Brickto (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Brickto, I know you mean to help, but no need to call others names even if their arguments are flawed. Assuming good faith always helps. Also, a big wall of links of varying quality is not the most effective way to demonstrate notability. I'll just point Oaktree b again to the three sources I linked earlier (Inquirer, E!, and Rolling Stone). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 01:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling Stone is a photo caption as barely two paragraphs about Pohl. E isn't much better. You need extensive coverage in reliable sources, not trivial coverage is a few articles. We don't have enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hameltion I called nobody any name. So I’d appreciate you striking that. Frankly, you don’t fight hard enough for your articles. This subject actually is well beyond what is considered notable by Wikipedia’s standards. Also, Oaktree b doesn’t need to be shown anything. They are capable of researching the subject themselves (take a look at the top of every AfD as it instructs you to do so) which they refuse to do. The Post isn’t notable by whose standards? Is this because they recently posted about how Wikipedia has a censorship problem. Well case in point. Good luck with the AfD. The people who behave like the nominative and oak are the people that killed this project. Don’t try to appease people who have problems with doing what they are supposed to, or the bare minimum at that. Be well. Brickto (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please review our list of reliable sources [31]. The NY Post has been deems not reliable since around 2020. I'm asking you to please review the list before throwing around accusations. Please and thank you. Oaktree b (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun and the Post don't prove notability and aren't RS (reliable sources). Frankly, I'm not going through a list that long if you can't provide us with examples that are what we qualify as reliable sources. Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b If you can’t take the time to click some links, then don’t take the time to write out a response. Your passive aggressive behavior drives editors away and no I am not going to assume good faith when someone isn’t acting in good faith to begin with. You have a job to do, stop making everyone do it for you. WP:NEXIST: “Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any.” The burden of proof is on you. The guidelines don’t say “nominate baselessly and then make the author desperately try to get you to take a look at sources” You aren’t supposed to nominate or participate in AfD until you have already conducted a thorough search. Which you have absolutely not. You need to go do that and then come back and discuss. Brickto (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've said more than enough in this discussion and I'm tired of arguing about the issues. I have nothing further to add. Oaktree b (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per ~~these two sources yahoo news and~~ EDM.com, the subject has three nominations in the 2025 Electronic Dance Music Awards. That meets WP:MUSICBIO#8, demonstrating significant contribution in her field. I'll have a look at further sourcing when I get time. ResonantDis_tortion 22:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding significant sourcing beyond those referenced above - but with 3 nominations for a notable award, coupled with the Cincinnati and SI coverage, there's just enough to (a) show compliance with WP:MUSICBIO and (b) build an article, so leaning towards Keep. ResonantDis_tortion 10:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that this nomination does not qualify for a "Speedy keep" per WP:SK. Also note that personal attacks against participants will not help your case here, and prefacing your vote with "Strong" as retribution to someone else's view suggests you're treating this as a competition rather than as a discussion. Relisting to obtain another level-headed, neutral source assessment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, the nomination for the award might be notable, but it's not a free pass, we need sourcing that talks about it. The first source doesn't link to anything, and the second one is simply a listing. We might have notability, but no sourcing still working against us. Nothing's changed since the last review. Please don't leave a wall of text below this comment either. You've made your position clear. The new sources given suggest notability, but aren't enough to !keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Procedural Close‎. The article was speedy deleted as WP:G2 (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Úàâdia

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

Mason7512 (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

2027 Asansol Municipal Corporation election

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

Lacks Notability. TOOSOON. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Martins

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

Player who only acted in regional leagues in Brazil and in the second division of Romania [32].Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sportspeople, and Brazil. Svartner (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Subject doesn't meet notability.RolandSimon (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of children of vice presidents of the United States

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST. The 2023 Afd keep rationales are unconvincing. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for Bad English!

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

Appears to not be a notable album, presumably redirect to Mad Show Boys. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Latvia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into the band's page. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hinkler Hall of Aviation

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

a weak article, lacking basic criteria of significance, and supported only by press releases and weak references Loewstisch (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Aviation, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iron bird (aviation)

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

lack sufficient notability and reliable sources Loewstisch (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even at the time of nomination this had enough sourcing and WP:BEFORE to pass AfD. Thanks to Uncle G there's also now a pass per WP:HEYMANN. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bedia (caste)

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

The current articulation of this article presents multiple issues related to the reliability and verifiability of web sources, as outlined in such problematic insertion WP:Problem. A significant concern is the reliance on sources that fail to meet Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability, often resurfacing conspicuous site mapping from government portals suchlike Jarkhandculture.gov.in without proper attribution or independent supplemental pro-analysis. This raises concerns about original research and potential WP:SYNTH violations. Sailedwarrior (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Sailedwarrior (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support:without any impressment most of this delusional source are not neutrally enduring under workable conditions WP:DUE but unjustifiably diverging the site mapping of Jarkhandcutlure.gov.in without any contradiction [33] 2409:40D6:105:2C18:3C85:5B09:BC19:CE8C (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arrietty (drag queen)

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

Cannot find enough in-depth, non-trivial coverage for this person to meet GNG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, California, and Washington. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per snowball. There's a reason almost every single RuPaul's Drag Race contestant has an entry. That's because being cast on the show essentially guarantees notability per WP:ENTERTAINER; in addition to appearing on the series, participants are cast on the independently notable RuPaul's Drag Race: Untucked, appear on the notable series Whatcha Packin' and Hey Qween!, and participate in notable events and tours such as RuPaul's DragCon LA and Werq the World. Article improvement > article deletion. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP.

She is quite literally still airing on the show, the article is obviously going to expand more until the show stops airing or she is eliminated. In addition, she is a well-rounded performer who has a lot more to offer than simply her run on a television show. There is no reason to delete this article.

The nomination stems from a person whose name is a wikipedia page with less content than the Arrietty page... so... maybe just maybe this stems from a negatively minded conservative and not a real care towards Wikipedia guidelines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanahary - here Zanahary if you care so much about GNG how about you go try to delete an article that actually does not meet GNG and has very little in-depth/non-trivial coverage. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)— 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You got me. I'm a Malagasy sky deity jealous that my followers have dwindled to below the followers of this fabulous drag performer. I projected my consciousness into a field of clay to construct a golem that is now serving my divinity through Wikipedia.

Anyways, WP:CRYSTAL; WP:TOOSOON. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENTERTAINER

thank you, next. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the show is still in competition, this nomination is a few days premature. Let's see what happens this weekend. Bearian (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We wait for notability, not for persistent appearance of lack of notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As of Episode 9, he is in the top 7, so far. I'm still waiting for Episode 10, when more contestants shall be eliminated. Bearian (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Seattle Times is the only decent source about this person. Rest are about everyone on the show, or the person responding to "nasty" things others have said. Probably TOOSOON, outside of the show, there doesn't seem to be notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stor-Age

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

As a for-profit company this needs to meet WP:NCORP rather than GNG, and while there are lots of passing mentions and press releases, I'm unable to find substantive intellectually independent sources. There is also a history of UPE. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ,Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know why some see insufficient coverage - 3 dozen references, and the ones I checked did not reveal themselves as press release based. It's true that the info is generally pretty much "company did this, company did that" but for a company of this category there isn't much more to say. Lamona (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mailfence

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

Does not seem to meet the required depth for WP:NCORP. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A dedicated TechRadar review plus coverage in Lifewire, PCMag, and Makeuseof should be enough to demonstrate notability. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the TechRadar article, that one is dedicated to Mailfence. Not really convinced about the others where it is a small part of an overview. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the sources provided above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After putting in a decent amount of time searching for sources and cleaning up the article, I can't say that I see this as meeting the notability requirements of WP:NCORP, particularly with reference to WP:ORGCRITE. While the TechRadar review goes a small way to establishing notability, the balance of available sources aren't as convincing (either being from self-published blog posts or questionably reliable/independent listicles). KwanFlakes (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Changing to delete after seeing that the stricter WP:NCORP should apply to products and services. One dedicated review isn't enough for NCORP, and less significant coverage can be discounted. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Further reviews with full focus on company [34] [35] [36].Canary757 (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Hmm, the Cyberinsider article looks like to have some level of professionalism in editing standards. Might be suitable as WP:RS and together with the TechRadar article, it might even meet the WP:GNG bar then. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charu Chandra Bandyopadhyay

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

Insufficient Sources. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Insufficient source is not a reason to delete per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wilner v. NSA

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

Fails WP:GNG. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE and not WP:LASTING. Not a significant law suit/court case in any way, which the Supreme Court of the United States indicated by denying its writ of certiorari. [37] Longhornsg (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not !voting yet, but noting that I've just corrected one of the three sources used, because it was misattributed -- it's the group that filed the case, not a third party. There's only one third-party source here, and it's a mere two paragraphs, so that doesn't say much for the notability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. A Google Books search brings up a fair number of hits, but this seem mention-y. Still, there might be something there. BD2412 T 16:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. I added one source to the page, which also has about two paragraphs on the case. I would still be on the fence for notability, but I am wondering if this can be merged somewhere. BD2412 T 01:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Two cents: this and Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush could probably both be merged into NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–2007) (under Legal Issues heading). I don't think either case is particularly noteworthy on its own. LegalSkeptic (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't hate the merge idea for both either Longhornsg (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I was kind of thinking that this one could be merged to Glomar response. BD2412 T 03:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested, but not the list of red linked lawyers. Bearian (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have an argument to draft and several different Merge target articles proposed so no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Doesn't seem to be sustained in-depth coverage. I think the NSA article is a better option than Glomar response. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Boudriot

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

Lacking in real sources for WP:BIO, and no reviews that I can find for his book, Le vaisseau de 74 canons, for WP:AUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Architecture, Archaeology, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ : The Fr Wiki article is only a list of national catalogue listings used a sourcing and a list of books. The sourcing is even worse than what's here... I can only find this review of one of his books [38]. I don't see enough sourcing to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This review in the Naval War College journal (?, I'm not sure if it's a magazine or a formal academic jouranl) seems to help this person pass AUTHOR [39]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linas Garsys

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

This artist doesn't seem notable outside of, maybe, passing mentions in articles about other topics. CampingWithCigarettes (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and United States of America. CampingWithCigarettes (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, Thailand, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – From what I understand, the artist gained notoriety as a result of a controversy involving the (DEI) policies of the current Trump administration. It is not enough for WP:GNG, and the episode is not even included in the First 100 days of the second Donald Trump presidency# Diversity, equity, and inclusion. If something more substantial comes up in the discussion, I'll change my vote. Svartner (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of significant coverage. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not seem notable and their involvement in a single event doesn't seem to change that. Boredintheevening (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has existed without criticism since 2019. This sudden proposal to delete the entry feels like a pro-Trumpian effort to censor the internet of anything critical of Trump's Presidency, much as the Whitehouse is censoring information from government agencies and databases. MrEarlGray (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really doubt that Wikipedia, of all places, is particularly active in censoring criticism of Trump... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True, but given anyone of any political affiliation can nominate any article for deletion my point still stands. MrEarlGray (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hana Zagorová discography

AfDs for this article:

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

This had been successfully nominated for deletion in 2011, but never was deleted. The article should be merged into the article on the singer because it cites no RS and is undue. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Albums and songs, and Czech Republic. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment according to the logs it was deleted in 2011 but re-created in 2019. And the comment "it cites no RS" seems to not hold true either. Not only is there a source at the page, there is the Czech page with additional sources. So, before going into this further, what is the reason for deleting this page? C 679 11:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or possibly redirect to the singer's article if "discography" is a likely search term. There really are no relaible sources on this page. The one footnote is to a directory listing for the singer's larger career and is not relevant for a list of every single one of her releases. The equivalent Czech WP article [40] is also dependent on sources that are either unreliable, or if they're reliable they are also about the singer and still do not support the all the items in this list. Regardless, she has a great number of releases over a long successful career, but presenting the list in this fashion possibly violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and we could cite WP:READABILITY too. The singer's article has a helpful list of studio albums and that is sufficient. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a long-standing tradition to split discographies into separate pages, see Category:Pop music discographies. And yes there are reliable sources. Also, all items are individually searchable and verifiable; it is an extremely popular singer in Czech lands. Take a random on: "Poslední šantán / Obraz smutný slečny". --Altenmann >talk 17:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LORAN-C transmitter Salwa

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

No sources on topic other than entries on lists of LORAN transmitters. Should be merged into comprehensive list of the antennas instead of having permanent one-sentence articles for each mast PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Military, and Saudi Arabia. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed, lacks independent notability. Mztourist (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a merge target? Or is the proposal to create a new article and merge this into it?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is not currently a merge target. The proposal is to create an article "List of LORAN-C transmitters" and merge this and similar articles into it. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Momversation

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

Non-notable web site / video series. This was PRODed in 2016 but it still has not improved since then. Natg 19 (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Websites, United States of America, and California. Natg 19 (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are two sources at the time of writing, one of which is a blog and the other is from Adweek, which previous RSN's have determined to be generally reliable. Still, there is no evidence of reliable sustained coverage, so I lean delete per WP:SUSTAINED. Madeleine (talk) 03:28, 7 March 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 03:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ansuman Bhagat (Writer)

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

Repost of material previously salted at Ansuman Bhagat. Was tagged A7 and declined, then draftified and undone so WP:DRAFTOBJECT now applies and we need a AfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Jharkhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I declined WP:A7 here because of a claim of significance, "Best Writer Award for the year 2022"; I should not have done so, as it seems that claim was not a credible one – the awarding institution is an online publish-on-demand company. The "books" listed in WorldCat are self-published through another such company, Authors Tree Publishing (incorrectly listed in Worldcat as "Author Tree Publishing"). I don't read Hindi, but can see no indication here of notability of any kind. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In case this page was kept, kindly rename the page to Ansuman Bhagat. The current title includes an unnecessary disambiguation. Thanks and no opinion on the AFD. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Urban society in China

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

This page remains an WP:ESSAY without WP:RS. Urbanization in China already covers the topic. Amigao (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page has only two sources and is an essay. The topic is already covered by Urbanization in China. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 06:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, per nom Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew Free Loan Society of New York

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

Fails WP:NORG. Redirect to Gemach as WP:ATD. Longhornsg (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, and New York. Longhornsg (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The organization has been covered widely and in-depth in such reliable and verifiable sources as this one from The New York Times, which will be added to the article. It's not clear what WP:BEFORE search was done by the nominator, but there were dozens of articles related to the organization that popped up in a simple search online. Alansohn (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current sourcing demonstrates notability. Thriley (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic of New Zealand Party

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

Fails GNG, there is no significant coverage of the group bar the New Zealand Herald article in the article. The rest of the coverage in the article is non-independent/trivial/routine reporting. Nothing I could find with a search for the party's name turned up any SIGCOV. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support --LJ Holden 09:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of political parties in New Zealand#Parties that never held seats. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to that list it is 'limited to notable parties', so any party without an article would not be included. I don't have an issue if the criteria is changed for that list but currently it would exclude any article deleted/redirected at AfD from being included. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLIST: not all members of a class have to be notable per se. FWIW, the reliable source reporting about the party (eg Small parties battle election arithmetic (2005), Police investigating after flag burnt at Parliament (2010), Police on to anti-royals (2012)) is borderline, but not quite there in my mind for a GNG pass as only one piece has SIGCOV. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the selection criteria is for notable parties only, that criteria (or at least wording) would need to be changed. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hunger (poem)

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

notability; doesn't warrant a seperate article. one of many promotional articles created by a blocked user. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per GNG. Herinalian (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Jayanta Mahapatra, decent coverage in reliable sources ie [41], [42]. Described as "one of Mahapatra's most quoted early poems" here (p. 60). Still, would like one or two more sources to clearly establish notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jayanta Mahapatra.Lacks sources for standalone article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more forthcoming opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 16:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get back on log, note TK
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closer note, I had closed as N/C since the further input was not forthcoming, but Eddie891 raised the potential of consensus on my Talk and I have relisted it for same. No objection to a reclose when folks feel it's settled. Star Mississippi 01:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jayanta Mahapatra. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Soumyapatra13 and Herinalian - pinging to see if y’all are ok with merging to the poet’s article as an alternative to deletion? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 07:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, seems Merge would be better. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Davidov

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

Highly questionable notability Amigao (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Louisiana, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he might be notable, but the sources are terrible. Bearian (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo Bay detainee uniforms

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

Another piece of Guantanamo cruft. Fails WP:GNG, as these are just prison uniforms at a notable prison. We don't have an article about ADX Florence uniforms. There's no WP:SIGCOV on the prison uniforms themselves to establish notability. Only WP:PASSING. And the article is a collection of WP:SYNTH. WP:ARTICLEAGE or WP:HARMLESS are not valid arguments for notability and thus keeping. Longhornsg (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Cuba, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as utter trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. FWIW original creator indeffed. Mztourist (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Guantanamo Bay detention camp. The topic isn't notable enough to warrant its own article, but there should be at least a few sentences about the uniforms on the Guantanamo Bay article. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 04:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing my vote to Keep, as RebeccaGreen has found WP:SIGCOV and has added it to the article. I also agree that the main article shouldn't be lengthened. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 13:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't agree that something about the uniforms is mergeable. There is no indication whatsoever that there is anything notable or WP:DUE about the uniforms. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not appropriate for Wikipedia, fails WP:GNG jolielover♥talk 08:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~or Merge with Guantanamo Bay detention camp.~~ I am not sure yet if there is SIGCOV, though I did find "North Carolina firm supplies uniforms for war prisoners", and the book Dress Behind Bars: Prison Clothing as Criminality has several pages about the Guantanamo Bay orange jumpsuits [43]. There is some coverage of the use by Islamic State of orange jumpsuits for their prisoners, "a reference to the prison uniforms at Guantanamo Bay" [44] and here [45]. Stage performances have also used orange boiler-suits to represent Guantanamo Bay-style captivity, eg [46], page 24. The book Escape to Prison: Penal Tourism and the Pull of Punishment (page 76) [47] describes how Old Melbourne Gaol museum asks visitors to think about how Ned Kelly would be treated today, and show a photograph of him dressed in an orange boiler-suit ("think Guanatanamo Bay"). The quote in the article, that "that is the image that is being left with people all around the world, that everybody in Guantanamo is wearing an orange jump suit", does fit with these sources. Some more about these issues could be added to the article. The Guantanamo Bay article is already long, so it would probably be better to keep this article separate. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this qualifies as WP:SIGCOV. Longhornsg (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen. I only found two unsourced, potentially contentious clauses in this article, which can be solved with ordinary edit requests or excision. The main article is too long. Lots of trivial stuff ends up in WP:ODD. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sentence explaining the "compliant" and "non-compliant" uniforms is about all you need to know, the rest appears to be fluff and many photos. I really don't even see the point of a merge, prisoners wear uniforms in prison. Oaktree b (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly creepy 'trivia' that is of no importance to any average reader, even for someone who regularly studies incarceration. Nathannah • 📮 23:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have edited the article and started adding more sources and info. Many of the arguments presented so far seem to fit WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and/or WP:ITSCRUFT. However, this topic is the subject of a chapter in a book published by Indiana University Press, 4-5 pages in a book published by Bloomsbury Publishing, and an article in The Washington Post, in addition to less substantial coverage in other articles. For other topics, I believe this would be considered WP:SIGCOV. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radya Caldaya

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

WP:N, no significant coverage in reliable sources either in Assyrian, Arabic, or English. Article has barely seen substantial edits since its creation in 2007. Surayeproject3 (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was able to find only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of this magazine in only a handful of sources. Thus, it should be deleted unless significant coverage is found. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 08:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]